Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 27	November 29 >

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 delete G7 by User:Fastily. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mouton[edit]

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

I admit I created this article but I understand now why it fails WP:NACTOR. He’s only had one significant role as Blake in Whore (1991 film). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR

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 G7 by User:Fastily. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vito D'Ambrosio[edit]

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

I admit I created this article but I understand now why it fails WP:NACTOR. None of D’Ambrosio’s roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 29 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian James Gage[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: this page was brought to RfD after it was converted to a redirect by new page reviewers. The discussion there suggested that the redirect itself was potentially misleading, and that the underlying notability of the original article subject was in dispute. AfD is the appropriate forum to address this remaining concern. Pinging involved editors Takemehome2night, Onel5969, Praxidicae. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems an uncontroversial failure of GNG; WP:AUTHOR Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel deletion is appropriate. Redirection to a band he had very little to do with and was technically never a member of is confusing and I do not agree with that choice. I checked the history of this article as I have been watching/helping this page for a while now. It was created in 2006 when it seems the author had more of a "rising" feel to his career. But since, he has taken a 16-year gap between releases, his early works have faded in popularity and seem to be out of print from what I can gather. Deletion is the best option for this article. If author's new books rise in popularity, then an editor can come along in time and undo it. Thanks, Takemehome2night (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Sliekid (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews do not count towards passing GNG. I see no sourcing that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 30 November 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 G7 by User:Fastily. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Wheeler[edit]

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

I admit I created the article but I understand now why it fails WP:NACTOR. None of Wheeler’s roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 29 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Mill, California[edit]

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

Topos show a literal mill. Not in Gudde's California gold camps or place names books. Smattering of newspapers.com hits, but nothing super special. It closed early one year. Somebody got lost in a snowstorm near there. [https://www.newspapers.com/image/607192055/?terms=%22Peterson%20Mill%22&match=1 Dead body found near there. Some more stuff like that, but all routine coverage for a mill. As a mill, it fails WP:GEOLAND, and WP:GNG does not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligently mass-produced false content. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 30 November 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. Missvain (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Owens[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill political advisor fails WP:GNG. Being the daughter of the president-elect's sister does not make her notable. KidAd talk 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has plenty of her own merits which is why she deserves her own page. HesioneHushabye (talk)

Any policy to support that, or just WP:ILIKEIT? Serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Secretary of Energy is not a position that meets any notability standard, and the page is written like a LinkedIn profile. KidAd talk 01:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article states among her many notable involvements that she currently works in a highly public and visible role for The Coca Cola Company as Director of Public Affairs. HesioneHushabye (talk)

That isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees an article either. It's not our mandate, role or mission to have an article about every single person who has a job. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG failure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She hasn't held any political roles that would make her "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, and notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically special just because of who her uncle is either. So the only valid basis for notability here would be that she passed WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the sources here are not substantively about her, and instead comprise a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of her uncle. That's not how you reference a person as notable enough for inclusion here: we require reliable source media coverage that has her and her work as its primary subject, not just any page on the web that happens to have her name in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and a case example of WP:NOTINHERITED. Elms^super 02:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG failure. Not notable at this time. Her uncle is president-elect. More exposure may follow sometimes after her uncle becomes president -for good and bad this is my experience- but notability should be data-driven, not automatic. Right now I do not see the sources. If someone here takes a special interest in Owens, I'm also fine with draftification and certainly with a redirect to the family page. gidonb (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect per gibond). The only strong source I see so far is this NYT article. This one is quite good as a basis for notability, but it stands alone for now. Jlevi (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Joe Biden.★Trekker (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political advisor. Just being related to the US president does not give automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable failing WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:26, 1 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 00:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Montevideo Victoria Plaza Hotel[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or meeting WP:NBUILD showing historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. This is a nice, normal, hotel (wish I was there), not an encyclopedic topic. WP:BEFORE showed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and booking sites/directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely does not seem to be a run-of-the-mill hotel. It opened in 1952, was renovated in the 1990s, is located next to the most important square in Montevideo, and seems to have been the only five-star hotel in the country for some time. This national newspaper called it "uno de los edificios mas emblemáticos de la ciudad" (one of the most emblematic buildings in the city). I don't speak Spanish and a lot of coverage is probably pre-Internet, but a quick Google search yields a lot of coverage in national newspapers: reopening after renovation by mayor, this article about some award show also describes the hotel, [1], [2], [3] - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of sources available on this hotel in Spanish, which makes sense since it was one of the first major hotels in Montevideo. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides agreeing what the above discussion says, it's a large high-end hotel on arguably the most important square in Uruguay - like the Plaza Hotel. I've been outside of it but haven't stayed there. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 4 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 00:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn New Delhi Mayur Vihar NOIDA[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It was formerly a DoubleTree and happens to be the first DoubleTree hotel in India (Conde Nast, India Today). However, DoubleTree is just a Hilton hotel chain and besides being the first in India (some hotel has to be the first one in a country), there's nothing remarkable about this WP:MILL hotel with no long history or extraordinary size or importance. Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence or even an assertion of notability Spiderone 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:NBILD Sliekid (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BUILD and my standards for notable hotels. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 4 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. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Link[edit]

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

Yongmudo practitioner and teacher. I believe he falls short of the minimal notability requirements. The only substantial piece I could find is the SFGate story currently cited in the article but that piece is not really about Norman Link (it's about his martial arts mentor). The other two sources provided in the article are not independent of the subject. In terms of reliable third-party coverage, that's too thin to build a decent article. Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously does not meet any martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and my search for him in Google Scholar did not find enough to show me that he was a notable academic, though there were a number of "N Link" authors so it was hard to be sure. The book listed in the article has only 11 citations and I saw nothing to show notability as a " former cancer researcher". Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 2 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 to Austin Independent School District. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorinda Pillow Elementary[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable elementary school. It does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. All I am finding is local coverage. It did receive the Blue Ribbon Award in 2004, but I do not think this is enough to establish notability, because this is a commonly handed out award. I think it's best to either delete or redirect to Austin Independent School District. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more sources, dosen't seem notable. Is this Dorinda Pillow notable? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. She was just a teacher for the school district for 47 years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like almost every other elementary this is not notable. Ms. Pillow does not seem to be notable either, having an elementary school named after you does not make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Austin Independent School District. I don't really care which, but this school clearly isn't notable for anything worthy of it having an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem Mollaie[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:45, 5 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 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Bradford[edit]

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

There are no tall buildings in Bradford and, with Citygate Bradford still not making any progress, it seems unlikely that there will be a tall building any time soon.

This fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis, Skyscrapernews and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Bradford' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here. The closest thing I could find was this.
No significant high-rise building under construction so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in England nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 35m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in London and Manchester so why are we doing it here?
This only meets two of the standards set by User:Bearian. The first two.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings and structures in Wolverhampton and List of tallest buildings and structures in Hull Spiderone 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buildings aren't that tall. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, on the basis that, though there are some very tall proposed buildings which could justifiably form the core of a list article, there is strangely little or no secondary coverage about them, despite generally being projects from the last 15 years. The Mill chimney and the Town Hall don't justify a list article by themselves. Sionk (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiderone, who cited my standards (there is no official, relevant policy). Bearian (talk) 00:24, 4 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marimba 2010[edit]

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

Definitely a non-notable, one-time event. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The PROD was done by me accidently as I meant to start a deletion discussion so take that as you will. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:03, 1 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. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CodigoDelSur[edit]

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

The only reference in the article is about a piece of software they put out, but only has trivial coverage of the company. All I could find in a WP:BEFORE was more trivial coverage also. For instance about how "amazing" their office is. I couldn't find anything that was in-depth and would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP though. At the end of the day this is a run of the mill software company that's going about its business. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text does no more than describe a company going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability. Searches find routine listings, mentions of the founder giving conference speeches, a brief piece about their office in an old mansion, but I am not seeing the necessary evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 3 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. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALPS Mountaineering[edit]

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

The only references in the article are primary sources and I could not find anything about the company in a WP:BEFORE that isn't just trivial coverage of their products. So this article does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 28 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Grand İzmir Özdilek[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ To be honest I don't know how notable hotels and buildings are, but this one has for some reason multiple sources from Milliyet [4] [5] [6] and one from Sabah [7]. Other sources are from minor publishers (some even look like promo): [8] [9]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per comments under. ~Styyx II ^Talk? 09:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources linked above seem to demonstrate some notability Spiderone 15:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources. Doesn't meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has been discussed at length in Turkish, but too tired to actually look through and see if those sources are notable. If I remember I'll edit this vote. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILD. Ther'es neither significant coverage, nor any allegation that the building is notable. Also badly fails my standards for hotels. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely meets 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of "your standarts". ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV with only one source and barely any locatable info to justify an article. BJackJS talk 17:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't necessarily have to be in the article only, there is more than one source. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:57, 4 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. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ofoedu[edit]

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

This page has been tagged for refimprovement since 2008: it was previously nominated in 2016, with minimal participation and no consensus. His notability is limited to having been a guest member of a minor music group, and being engaged to Vanessa Feltz. I'm not convinced that either of these would pass NOTINHERITED, and I cannot find anything else which might demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The people who gave their names to the group he was in do not seem to merit articles, there seems no reason for him to get an article. It might be worth actually mentioning him on the article on the group he was with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Being a guest member in a rap group and married to a notable person (although I have never heard of Vanessa Feltz until I read her article) does not make someone notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:31, 2 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. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ridge Mountains Council[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Current article has no sources and is promotional. A quick search of Google News archive reveals no obvious sources with adequate depth and independence. Daask (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article could definitely use some clean up, this is an actual BSA council and there are plenty of other articles for other BSA councils (see HERE). Seems to me you either merge all council articles per WP:BRANCH (good luck with that) or you keep them separate. From a purely organizational point of view, I find this most helpful as a separate article. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 15:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally part of Scouting_in_Virginia#Blue_Ridge_Mountains_Council. --evrik ^(talk) 01:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs clean-up, but is notable. --evrik ^(talk) 01:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is as far as I can tell based on the webpage of the council itself. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 3rd party sources, not just the internal publications of an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's under referenced and needs to be copy-edited.--evrik ^(talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik and Anubis3: Please read WP:ORGCRIT for the criteria on which deletion will be made. "Other stuff exists" is not an valid argument. Could you identify which sources you can find on this subject that are independent and have adequate depth? Daask (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been presented for the notability of this topic according to WP:NORG, so I would support a merger with Scouting in Virginia. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many end users utilize Wiki to also discover their local council. Having each council listed with their information reinforces our validity as a trusted site for data. Needs a touch of updating. Agree with other users, this is a needed source of information. Merging all councils into one state page is a disservice to many. Some councils cross over state lines, like Washington DC.--sweet68camaro ^(talk) 02:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have now added content and reliable sources that are more than passing mentions to help meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG. JGHowes ^talk 17:54, 30 November 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) 22:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khorasani footballers[edit]

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

An intersection for which there is no evidence of any notability. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything particularly special, distinctive or different about footballers from this Iranian province than any other. There isn't generally that much coverage on these types of topics which is why we don't see topics like List of footballers from Yorkshire or List of footballers from Hertfordshire and so on. This also has incredibly broad criteria. To qualify for the list you can either be born or raised in Khorasan, lived there for any amount of time or have at least one ancestor from there!

As per WP:LISTN - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - I see no evidence of that for this topic.
WP:LISTPURP - this list is not informative, it does not aid in navigation nor is it useful for development purposes.
WP:ATD - there is no obvious merge or redirect target. I'm also strongly against merging anything that's basically WP:OR.
WP:RS - the sources used do not look reliable and I'm not convinced that any RS exist for this topic. Spiderone 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pure LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 21:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above Sliekid (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no value in a list of "Footballers born in Khorasan Province (unless they weren't) and who played for the national team (unless they didn't)" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Mill, California[edit]

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

Literal mill, not an unincorporated community. Topos show it in a smaller sans serif font reserved for noncommunity manmade structures like mills and mines. The only coverage I can find is stuff like this which refers to "the Lane Mill" and gives it an address in Darwin. Based on Gbooks, there seems to have been some mining in the area, but the coverage is mostly trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This does not appear to be a community or ghost town or anything notable. Yilloslime (talk) 22:14, 3 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. Please clean it up. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan J. Cole[edit]

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

No reason for notability given (not in the man's function, nor in the references in the article): person is not notable by our standards (and the article reads like a resume). Drmies (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He’s a Major General so isn’t he presumed notable? Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while his rank satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is an Essay, not a guideline and he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Like other active Major Generals like David Eastman, Rupert Jones, Tim Hyams, Nick Borton, Chris Ghika article should be kept, needs more references but don't use unverifiable references. BlueD954 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:SOLDIER as a general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that article is poor. Subjects passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharon Nesmith As Director [of] Personnel has a good-written article and as 'Director' she's of equivalent level to Cole. So far, none of the other Army Command Directors: Director Reserves - Major-General Simon Graham, Director Support - Major-General Simon Hamilton, Director Basing and Infrastructure - Major-General David Southall, Director Army Legal Services - Major-General Alexander Taylor, Director Capability - Major-General Jeremy Bennett and Director Engagement and Communications - Major-General Neil Sexton have articles on Wiki - or do they? BlueD954 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER as a general officer. AfD is not clean-up. Edwardx (talk) 18:45, 5 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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics India Ltd[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The article is largely unsourced, has a promotional tone and relies on routine coverage. Likely COI editing. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 1999 journal article by James Heitzman (accessible through JSTOR in the Wikipedia Library) offers a thorough and independent history of the company. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator, I was also unable to locate significant media coverage. And I agree with the nominator that the article, as currently written, has NPOV issues and relies on citations that do not demonstrate notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:17, 2 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. Missvain (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julius (band)[edit]

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

Notability seems uncertain. The Dutch article was deleted, but there was no real discussion about it. (someone proposed deletion and an admin agreed) Here's an interview with the lead singer from a RS, but that doesn't directly help to establish notability for the band. I don't know how big the band is in Asia. One of their songs was featured on an episode of The Bold and the Beautiful, but is that enough? And the Mayson guitar company mascot thing, well, they don't seem to have an article.

@Ritchie333: You previously declined a speedy deletion request because "most bands aren't asked to support U2". I dislike speedy deletion for anything not obviously vandalism/spam/etc, but your argument is invalid. I listened to the source, an interview with the lead singer (in Dutch, which I understand) and Julius did the aftershow. In the interview he is asked whether he will actually meet U2, and he says that as there are 4 shows planned, he figures there may be a moment when they could shake hands. It's not like they were performing together, alas. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep reference 3 seems to show they had a hit record that charted highly on the Netherlands national top 40 chart - but am not positive about it so a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC) striking in view of later info Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Actually no.. Back to the days reached the #7 spot in the Tipparade. This is a list of 30 tracks that are suggested may enter the Top 40 at some point based on sales numbers and the personal preference of various people in a meeting. (it's complicated mkay) As an example, check the current #1 of the actual Top 40: https://www.top40.nl/master-kg-ft-nomcebo/jerusalema-35028. In week 32, it was #24 in the Tipparade. In week 33 it was #1 in the Tipparade. In week 34 the graph turns red: the song reached #27 in the Top 40, which also means it was no longer in the Tipparade. Back to the days never made it into the Top 40. You can also verify this on the artist page where you'll see "Top 40-hits: Geen". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, have struck my vote and am neutral, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:NBAND, whether or not they eventually got to meet U2. – bradv🍁 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:NBAND NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 23:14, 30 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson Allie[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is routine or transactional or youth sports coverage. Non-notable minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You need to do some more WP:BEFORE. He's a notable bust with lots of coverage.[10][11][12] That's just a start, but I'm more focused on the election right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit those articles cover him decently, they are all prospect watches from the media market for the team that drafted him, and I can't find coverage from anywhere else. I don't think he's a "notable bust" but rather just a non-notable minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are articles in reliable sources that cover him in significant depth. That's GNG. Arguments that WP:ITSLOCAL don't apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make him notable. He's a washed out prospect who only received coverage from the media market of the team that drafted him and the coverage is routine. Minor leaguers are rarely notable, and he does not appear to be. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no coverage that actually rises to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching turns up several instances of meaningful media coverage.[13] [14] [15]. I don't see how these articles fail to constitute notability. Also, I think its not particularly civil to call him a "washed out prospect." Our job is to assess notability, not making judgments about the subject of the article. And, respectfully, I think the media coverage he has received makes him notable. And if that means other minor leaguers are notable, then so be it. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are sufficient in terms of WP:GNG. They're all blogs such as SportsNation. Almost every minor leaguer will receive at least some coverage, but that doesn't mean they're notable for Wikipedia purposes. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet GNG per above sources. I'm perfectly fine with having more articles on minor leaguers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:12, 2 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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Salvino[edit]

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

Lack of INdependent news coverage about him apart from Routine business announcements. "Things to know" / personal bios / social media fails GNG Yogiile (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBUSINESSPERSON is potentially applicable here. Salvino is CEO of a fortune 500 company. This article from The Register [16] adds some interesting context that DXC is failing and that Salvino was put in for that reason.Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. If you google his name, you can find lots of Ghits, but there's zero newspaper articles about him, stray mentions of him in magazines and books, and no social media presence that I can find. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 4 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) 09:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AirTags[edit]

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

Per WP:RUMOUR and convention, products not yet officially announced, even if anticipated, do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Could draftify till official release. Highly anticipated and almost-certain to be released products such as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 12 set the precedent for deletion. 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in first deletion debate on the overwhelming strength of tier-one English language reliable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST explains why appealing to precedent is fraught even in an apples-to-apples comparison. This is not even such an apples-to-apples situation wrt iPhone 12; it is a new product line, not an incremental edition, creating an entire new location-based network ecosystem and a Pandora's box of privacy and security considerations, as well as monopoly concerns and lawsuits noted by the sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - content is reliably sourced and per WP:CRYSTAL, predictions stated by reliable sources in the field (which is the case) are allowed Eyebeller (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Did you even take into consideration that this was kept after an AfD a mere three months ago? Okay, it was No Consensus, but that's essentially just Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Sliekid (talk) 09:23, 29 November 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 for now. No prejudice against redirecting. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Rania HD[edit]

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

Moved to Draft in search of references but coming back to mainspace without fixing it. There is no significant or independent coverage on the subject which makes it notable. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source that it has is towards its own website. Zero notability, clear delete. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its owner, Astro (television). Foxnpichu (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The big issue with a redirect to Astro is that the channels are barely talked about in that article, which is as overstuffed as the list-ofs for DirecTV and Dish Network channels were before they were finally taken out under NOTTVGUIDE. As there hasn't been any communication about what the network carries (either original or rerun content), and there are few good sources, a delete is the only choice for now. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it work if said article was improved? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't satisfies notability. Sliekid (talk) 09:24, 29 November 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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Majlak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - page creator has growing history of articles on non-notable people. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG... covered significantly by reliable sources. One of the most well-known YouTubers and this can be seen by his coverage by many secondary sources. In List of YouTubers, most of the listed YouTubers are much less notable and have much less coverage than Mike Majlak. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Give me a break! Covered "significantly" by "reliable" sources??? Yet another attempt by this editor to create a bio that fails WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it fail WP:BIO? Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a few citations to a few sources with dubious notability do not meet the criteria for either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I don't need to list all the criteria here. And please don't try to argue that YouTube views or subscribers or Google hits qualifies for notability as you have done with other articles you created, unless you can link a policy or guideline to verify that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, I wasn't saying YouTube subs or views added to notability, just that it could act as an indicator that the YouTuber might be notable for other reasons. I also wasn't trying to say that Google hits mattered at all (in the other discussion that I believe you are mentioning), just that when he is searched on Google, many reliable sources are among the results. I was just trying to argue why I believe it does follow WP:GNG and WP:BIO (and WP:YTN). However, I will stop participating in the discussion because I have shared my opinion clearly. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sourcing of a YouTuber with dubious notability. —Kbabej (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ajshul. The Social Blade links and Chartable links need to go. The rest of the sources seem to be reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or userfy - besides the obviously plain lack of any reliable source, we have considered YouTubers not to be inherently notable, and although consensus can change, I am clearly in the minority. As far as a "social media influencer", he has a claim with 0.3 Wheatons. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Be improved to meet guidelines. Kieran207 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, reliable links from various publications. Could be made better according to the guidelines and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.47.144 (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — 39.45.47.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note the above !vote is from an SPA with one edit. —Kbabej (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A self-published book and various gameable "success" metrics do not a notability case make. The only source that pokes its head above the reliability threshold is the one from The Verge, and that's just not enough. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published sources. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage, except for in articles about Logan Paul. If the page creator claims that there are sources, maybe draftify or userfy. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 21:02, 30 November 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. Keeping this and I'll let ya'll hash out the details about merging and redirects on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stryver[edit]

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

Despite the notability of the main work of fiction, this is a minor character with very little coverage in third party sources, and does not meet the WP:GNG. As is, there is nothing to say here other than a cast list and a plot summary, which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Tale of Two Cities. This seems like an improper AfD since a bold redirect is an obvious WP:ATD here. It would never be outright deleted due to its usefulness as a redirect to the source material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Check some sources below/added to the article, I think this has potential.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I restored a vandalized section on his development (more can be added from [17] but I feel tired and ProQuest articles require manual citation...) and started a reception section. Something more can be taken from [18]. This article contains a phrase "Dickens analyses the imprisonment of Stryver, the British legal system, and above all the..." and may or may not be relevant, but again, ProQuest sucks and the pdf is not searchable and don't have the time nor will to read the 17 pages here. More here: [19]: "Petch’s analysis of the professional relationship between Stryver and Carton can be read in terms of queer sexuality.", and the cited work is here, through frankly despite 24 hits for the subject's name most of it is plot summary, with the only analysis I see here: "Carton and Stryver are contrasted as lawyers, and as suitors." Next. The partial preview I get for [20] gives "relationship of Stryver and Carton as early as". In my experience, such classic literature tends to be heavily studied, and I think a more in-depth search should reveal more, but what I see suggests this character likely is notable. (And given that we sometimes keep comic book characters with coverage that is worse both in terms of analysis and reliability of sources...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are several pages on Stryver in The Lawyers of Dickens and Their Clerks by Robert D. Neely (Lawbook Exchange, 2001), pages 18-23. Not sure how much help it offers, but posting it here for others to look at. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there is insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I do see some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS which aren't enough to meet the WP:GNG, but still enough to potentially be preserved if someone really thinks it adds value and feels like doing a very selective merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Did you look at the sources I foundnd above? I don't think this is all 'trivial coverage'. Were you able to access the sources I couldn't (snippet views etc.)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Google results are fairly split between the Dickens character and the character from The Dark Knight Rises. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have further comments about the sources found by Piotr and Toughpigs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a character in a significant literary work. This should be expanded using the sources found by Piotrus. – bradv🍁 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a discussion already for this, the result was Keep and this nomination presents no new argument or evidence. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptively renominate" usually means mutliple rapid nominations, such as occcurred when I joined in 2006/7, where nominations every month or two were not uncommon, until the article was eventualy deleted on the 7th nomination. Consensus can change. The previous discussion was in 2009, 11 years ago.[21] Consensus ofn fictional characters certainly can have changed since then. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Ping User:DGG who is the only non-blocked participant of that old AfD who made any significant comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - or redirect. There is some content here to WP:PRESERVE and the topic can be expanded at the main article. Agree that notability isn't quite there at this point but there is an obvious place to include this. Archrogue (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A_Tale_of_Two_Cities#Characters, which already describes the character and his plot details. A minor character appearing in a single work should not have a separate, duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

r 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep my opinion has changed a little since then. In 2009, at the first AfD [22], I said all named characters of major novels by famous authors. I would now say, all significant named characters of major novels by famous authors. Checking the book again, he's not actually a major minor character. In the earlier AfD my colleague, the now blocked :A nobody , referred to an attempted redirect of Natasha Rostova-- one the 3 central characters of War and Peace, generally considered the greatest novel ever written--though much too long to be studied in US schools. Tale of Two Cities, a relatively straightforward and widely taught Dickens novel is of course much more familiar to the readers of the enWP,, but this is a immensely less important character in all respects. He's not trivial--as I said at the last AfD, Dickens is famous for his minor characters, all of whom are meaningful and not just background. But looking at what I said in the previous AfD here, I do not see the article has added the material I had hoped for at the time, and I am not right now in a position to check whether more exists. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I try not to wade into the comment section, because I find articles are either rescued by editing and consensus, or they aren't. But reading through the older AFD, I'm struck by how many blocked users asserted WP:POTENTIAL without any real proof (let alone actual improvements), and that only becomes less credible with time.
- The improvements during last AFD in 2009. The WP:PLOT and WP:CASTLIST is WP:IINFO. We need more for an encyclopedic article.
- 12 years of edit history. No sourced material. Zero.
- The improvements during the current AFD. To Piotrus's credit, he's the first to find a 6 word quote from a secondary source.
I read this as a passing mention about a stock character that verges on plot summary. And I did look at the gender studies essay about Sydney Carton, where Styver is similarly name-dropped while summarizing the book itself. For me, this just isn't the quantity (one sentence) or quality (plot summary with very little explanation of notability) that I'd expect in even the weakest Start-class articles on Wikipedia. I hope I'm not repeating myself and this certainly isn't an invitation for people to repeat that they still think this article can be improved, because we already know where we disagree. I suppose this comment is here for any editors who are trying to understand this disagreement after the fact. Jontesta (talk) 15:42, 1 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwave Festival[edit]

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

The subject is not notable; the article contains no indication of notability; and it has been tagged as unsourced since Jan 2009. "Soundwave Festival" is ambiguous with the different Soundwave (Australian music festival). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:EVENT. There is also a Soundwave Festival in Croatia, and a Soundwaves Festival in Brighton in England, both unrelated to this. But this is not a notable UK festival outside of the seaside town where it was held. It doesn't seem like it has taken place again since the 2016 event, and there's barely any mention of that year's event on the internet. The festival's own publicity says that the attendance "frequently surpassed 800 people"[23] – with respect to the organisers and their worthy cause, you can see we're not talking the tens of thousands that attend Glastonbury or Lollapalooza or Tomorrowland every year. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find the depth of coverage that would be required to satisfy WP:EVENT. The most recent sources I could find were all published in the lead-up to the 2016 event, and there's no indication that incarnation had any sort of significant coverage after the fact. – bradv🍁 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local festival. Mccapra (talk) 18:42, 28 November 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 16:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Venture Group[edit]

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

Not clear that it passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I haven't done a thorough WP:BEFORE, but this article would require a total rewrite due to promotional tone and no independent sources currently cited, so WP:TNT may be relevant. The organization no longer exists, so I don't think it's worth the trouble of our editors. Daask (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG - non notable, badly sourced advert. KylieTastic (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the most recent article I could find on this [24] was an announcement that it was going to be merged into a new organization called UpStart, which also doesn't appear to be notable. Either way, this organization hasn't had the significant coverage required by WP:NORG. – bradv🍁 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:53, 5 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 per WP:CSD#A3. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship decommissionings in 1951[edit]

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

Article has been empty since its creation in 2006. It should be a red link until someone is actually willing to populate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted it under WP:CSD#A3. This is without prejudice to recreation with content in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 28 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adv. VK Faisal Babu[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NPOL. This is more of WP:PROMOTION here. — Amkgp 💬 14:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 14:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 14:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his position does not give default notability and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet our inclusion criteria for politicians Spiderone 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 5 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 16:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Sam's New York[edit]

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

Ten year old unsourced advertisement. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it had a couple of reviews ten years ago, but never any significant coverage. To be honest, I never heard of it. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 4 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 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Heights Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have done a poor enough job on the massive number of high school articles we have which are rarely very substantial and often are too focused on the present and lack a long range view. Creating articles on every elementary school everywhere is a nightmare waiting to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 30 November 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 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bethal Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the vast, vast majority of primary schools are not notable. Nothing suggests this school is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no mentions in news media database search. Non notable. Cabrils (talk) 01:59, 2 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 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Bhatt (Gujarat cricketer)[edit]

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

Was a declined PROD. No coverage found apart from 1 stats page showing that he played in a single match. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also relevant is the recent discussion regarding WP:CRIN Roller26 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forgot I'd even de-prodded this one. Blurg. Whatev's. I doubt I'll end up with any of my Ranji Trophy cricketer articles left on here, but you know. Achievement is achievement even when it is systematically destroyed. Bobo . 12:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Gujarat cricketers. Fails all notability standards other than NCRIC/CRIN which, as the nom alludes to, does not enjoy community support. Even if there were valid arguments that such cricketers (i.e. those with very few FC/LA appearances with no contributions of substance) are notable, there is entirely insufficient information to sustain a standalone article, and it is inconceivable that any substantial coverage can be found if any even exists (statistical databases such as Cricinfo & CricketArchive do not count). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough substantive sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 30 November 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. Expand, improve and if all else fails PROD or re-nominate. Seems like there is hope for this article. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has become a battleground. The current version violates WP:BLP in so many aspects, despite attempts to bring in neutrality by a few editors, that it may put Wikimedia Foundation at risk of legal action. Currently I see little chance for this biography to become a neutral, encyclopaedic article about that borderline notable person. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is notable. The version of the page linked here cites and accurately represents numerous reliable sources, complying with both the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies. CowHouse (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large number of RS have covered this person substantiating the topic's notability. OP claims the page is a violation of BLP. This is nonsense. The page is reflective of RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, with no prejudice to draftifying until the bias and mudslinging are removed. No, I don't support Beeley's views, however the amount of bias in this article, and the WP editing history of some of its contributors, give little hope for it to become an article worthy of an encyclopaeda. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination counts as your !vote, since it already states your position. It's not necessary to repeat one's opinion. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article having become a battleground is not a reason to delete it, particularly when there is every indication that a fully policy-compliant version could be written. Indeed, as CowHouse points out, such a version appears to exist within the article history already. The available sources indicate that the notability bar is cleared. The existing text is good enough that there's no need to blow it up and start over (i.e., WP:TNT does not apply). XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum The article went through AfD and was kept in April 2020, when it had half as many references as it does now. An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. That is manifestly not the case here, thanks to the absence of threats and the abundance of sources. Any issues with tone or balance can be addressed through ordinary discussion and editing, rather than deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have said, being a "battleground" on Wikipedia does not limit the subject's notability. Kashmiri is inappropriately using the deletion process because they're having a hard time gaining consensus on the talk page. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest deletion on the grounds that it is an attack page. The page was previously deleted in 2018 for that reason. It was deleted a second time in 2018 because it was created by a blocked or banned user.

The page includes numerous one-line statements about Beeley’s views but provides no context. There is a long list of problematic sentences in the bio which I have raised on talk. One example is the sentence “After French presidential candidate François Fillon denounced Assad, Beeley tweeted "Zionists rule France”. Sometimes we have removed context which would be useful to the reader. One example is the sentence “That year, she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing it as her "proudest moment””. Beeley actually said ""Proudest moment. Meeting President Bashar al Assad with the US Peace Council Delegation". One of the sources we used for Beeley’s statement did mention that visit was with the Peace Council but we chose to remove that part of the quote.

The page makes no attempt to explore Beeley’s view. One example of this is her attitude to the White Helmets. We include a few sentences about her opinion of the White Helmets:

"She has said White Helmets volunteers, described by Beeley as terrorists, are a legitimate military target”.

"She described the White Helmets as "a fraudulent terrorist organisation"".

We describe her as "among the most influential figures in spreading content online about the White Helmets" but make no effort to explain why she considers the White Helmets terrorists or why she links them to al-Qaeda.

It has also been extremely difficult to add content to the page which reflects positively on Beeley. Such opinions do exist. The journalist John Pilger described her reports from Syria as “substantiated investigative work”. It is a notable opinion from a well-known journalist so one would expect there would be no issue with including it in Beeley’s bio. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case.

Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attack page. I think the WMF is lucky Beeley has her hands full with other matters, since she would probably succeed in a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:BLP. I'm frequently embarrassed when I tell people I'm a Wikipedia editor, and they, correctly, comment that Wikipedia is unreliable on certain topics. This article is one of the worst examples. It's unsalvageable, given what currently counts as RS. --NSH001 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr NSH001. (Also: Trying to write "the truth" about what has been going on in Syria today, is like trying to write the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMD in 2003), Huldra (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per editors above. Obviously notable given range of RS coverage.[25] Any specific problems (as per e.g. Burrobert above) can be dealt with through finding consensus and following WP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and has recieved substantial coverage in mainstream sources. Delete votes reflect WP:PROFRINGE advocacy attempting to give WP:FALSEBALANCE as a volation of WP:NPOV. Attempting to suggest that the conspiracy theories around White Helmets are credible is arguably a WP:BLP violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not so important that keeping an article is worth the unending angry back and forth it creates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hemiauchenia and XOR'easter. The way it reads now is very skeletal, with basically every sentence standalone -- but it's still referenced, and therefore has the potential to be a fleshed-out encyclopedic entry. I do think the negative statements in the lead need to be supported better in the body (e.g. substantiating her status as a conspiracy promoter with more attributed refs, fuller context, and more direct responses to/commentary on her work). JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 30 November 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 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaraya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I could not find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur it fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NBOOK. Dan arndt (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Wikipedia article Kumaraya seems to be cooked up....It has poor sources which are not reliable...it does not nominate the criterion for being a Wiki article...(~GANGA TRIVEDI~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GANGADEVI TRIVEDI (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 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 16:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton, California[edit]

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

Appears to have been a railroad station on the Tonopah & Tidewater, with no associated community. Topos show a spot that appears when the railroad does, with a well and one or two buildings. It's marked as only the former site by the time the railroad is gone. Newspapers.com brings up no indications of a community here. This is referring to a station named Scranton which seems to be in this area; it's the most direct mention of this place I can find. Don't see a way this is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com is tricky because Scranton was a governor and is a place in PA. Searching for "Scranton Inyo in California" yielded nothing about the place. Searching for "Scranton Tonopah Tidewater in California" found a number of articles about Scranton being a station, so WP:STATION applies. Searching GBooks for "Scranton Inyo" has hits for shipping, but nothing that indicates there was a community at this location. As this location has no legal recognition and at best trivial coverage, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 16:39, 28 November 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 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtley, Kentucky[edit]

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

I may be missing something, in which case I'm willing to withdraw this, but I'm not seeing a WP:GEOLAND pass. Rennick's Ohio County directory's description of Kirtley is stating there was a post office there from 1905-1915 and that it was located on Mr. Kirtley's farm. His index calls it a locale (geography), which is defined by the USGS as any point where there was human activity but is/was not a community/town/city/settlement/mine/dam. So, most locales will fail GEOLAND. No mention in Ohio County, Kentucky in the Olden Days. I had to search newspapers.com with the string Kirtley Ohio County, because searching for Kirtley in Kentucky newspapers was only bringing up ads for a furniture store in Bowling Green. The refined search term brought up two or three short reports from 1913 about W. A. Kirtley being fired as the postmaster of the Kirtley p.o. Unless I'm really missing something, GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found more mentions of Kirtley in newspaper sources, but they seem to confirm that this was never a proper community. There's a reference to a Kirtley's Landing existing in 1901, and several mentions of a Kirtley's church camp at the site in the mid-twentieth century [26] [27] [28], all of which points to this being a locale rather than a community. The only other evidence here is that Kirtley is listed as the closest place to multiple sites in the Green River Shell Middens Archeological District, but that doesn't really prove it's a community; every so often I'll come across a site on the NRHP where the listed "closest place" is marked as a locale in GNIS, even. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:17, 28 November 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 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn, California[edit]

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

All sources that have anything substantive to say about this place unanimously identify it as a station on the Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad, a bit of badlands railroading of the sort beloved by Lucius Beebe and his buddies. It died and was taken up in WW II, and the only sign of it now is mention in GNIS and a conspicuous, perfectly circular scar on the other side of the road that appears to have been paved at some point. It appears in aerials as far back as 1983 (which as far back as my source went), but I could find no explanation for it other than the dubious and unsourced statement in the article. At any rate, no evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been looking over the Tonopah and Tidewater sites with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford Siding, California and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scranton, California, and had come to the conclusion that this was just a railroad feature, as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 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 16:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore, Butler County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick's county history doesn't mention it, while his index says that it was/is a locale (geography), which is below the threshold of legally recognized populated place needed for WP:GEOLAND. Didn't find anything in a county history I found on Google books, newspapers.com has a couple passing mentions, although a lot of noise for Needmore, Boyle County, Kentucky makes it hard to search. Topos show a cluster of only 3 or 4 buildings at its peak. Seems to have only been an informal neighborhood of some sort. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wrote this article back when I assumed a GNIS "populated place" designation was a higher standard than it is, and this one doesn't seem to hold up. I couldn't find anything more than what Hog Farm found, and I'm not too concerned about search noise, since there are four other places named Needmore in Kentucky and I was able to find sources on all of those. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:24, 28 November 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 16:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oteys Sierra Village, California[edit]

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

This is a strange one, but as yet another place cited only from GNIS and Durham, I cannot find any documentation of what was actually at this site. Topos show two rows of buildings which eventually disappear, leaving a blank spot. I found an obituary which stated that the subject was "raised at Oteys Sierra Village in West Bishop near Rocking K." This tends to suggest that this was a facility rather than a town, as does the peculiar name. Other than that, I found nothing other than name drops as a location; book hits in particular were extremely thin. If Durham actually explains what was here, that would help, but I'm really loathe to keep an entry based solely on GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So further searching produced a patron's ad in an old high school yearbook reading "OTEY'S SIERRA VILLAGE Groceries". This tends to point to it being a commercial enterprise rather than a community or neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, newspapers.com wasn't much help for me, as when I searched for the exact string "Oteys Sierra Village" I got nothing. Google brings up that one obituary. I found a few Gbooks mentions as a landmark, but I'm finding nothing explaining what this was. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG do not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:13, 28 November 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 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Litchfield[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Created by an editor with a declared COI. There is no SNG specifically for swimmers, but I don't see WP:NSPORT being met; simply participating in the Commonwealth Games is insufficient. No independent sources, just interviews/stats on British Swimming's sites and the International Swimming League site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and see User talk:MWellmann - new user needs some guidance on how to do this. Don't delete yet. This new user has good intentions, but not enough guidance on how this should be done. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is one of a large number of stub-class articles created by the author about competitive swimmers. On the one hand, Wikipedia does not have a notability guideline for competitive swimmers and should adopt one. As it is, they only satisfy sports notability if they have competed in the Olympic Games or satisfy general notability. On the other hand, this and the other stubs in question are conflict of interest articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maile66 - What guidance do you plan to give to the subject editor? How will they satisfy notability?? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not pass GNG. SNGs have been used too long to prop up articles that say nothing of substance about the subject. I do not think this is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 30 November 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. Missvain (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Grace Colin[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NACTOR and lacks WP:GNG WP:RS. WP:BLP1E applies w.r.t role in Dance Moms. More of here for WP:PROMOTION only. — Amkgp 💬 03:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 03:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 03:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for this page to be deleted. I included citations and information that is correct. She is from a very notable TV show and is continuing to grow in followers on multiple social media platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldcgals (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the references are all self-published and non-reliable sources like IMdB, TikTok, Instagram, Fandom, YouTube etc. The reply from the creator suggest that WP:COI or WP:UPE is involved — Amkgp 💬 05:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Also, the user only edited Dance Moms contestants-related pages. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no decent coverage in actual WP:RS Spiderone 09:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can put reliable sources, just ask. I will do so right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldcgals (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR and then link me to sources that show that Hannah Grace Colin meets those criteria Spiderone 14:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. KylieTastic (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed a lot of the sources and added more prominent ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldcgals (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per WP:NACTOR MarsToutatis ^talk 20:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Most of the sources are about the show, not her. The sources that are ACTUALLY about her are all unreliable like tiktok, youtube, fandom, instagram etc. Aldcgals however, really wants to keep the article which makes me wonder if (s)he is connected to Hannah (or the show) in some way (most likely yes, I think, but if (s)he's not, I sincerely apologize for accusing him/her with that. But still, (s)he most likely is. ;) Update: Well, it seems that (s)he's connected, as the user only edited articles that are about Dance Moms contestants. His/her user page also clearly states that his/her goal is to upload all DM contestants here. But (s)he could just be an obsessed fan. Either way, Hannah is not notable for WP. Sorry. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have what amount to reliable, secondary 3rd-party sources that say anything substantial about Colin. She also does not pass the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 30 November 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. Missvain (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)[edit]

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

Completing this for IP per comment on talk page: "Nothing in this article is cited. The only links are to a random blog on Wordpress. This article needs be seriously improved, or it needs to be deleted." I have no observation on the merits of the nomination other than that another note on the talk page claims it is a translation of an article from the Russian WP. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indeed a translation of the ru.wiki article which cites a number of sources. Unfortunately the creating editor didn’t bother to translate them too, but they’re there. People more familiar with the topic may want to argue that the sources are unreliable, but there’s no doubt that they’re there. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article creator has messages stretching back for years on their talk page asking them to source their articles properly, and they’re a New Page Patroller. Ho hum Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Mccapra on this. In the Russian article the "Примечания" (Notes) section is what we would call References and "Источники" is Further reading (or maybe general sources). However, as I am utterly flummoxed with Russian I don't really feel I can add these in. I have also found this and this. The topic is unquestionably notable and, dare I say it, important. The question for me is do we wait for it to be improved or would it be better to delete it and hope to goad someone into writing it properly. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it is in real need of someone adding valid sources form the Russian version and those mentioned above. KylieTastic (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clearly notable event which any decent encyclopaedia should cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An event with significant coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KylieTastic, definitely needs to use Russian sources. BlueD954 (talk) 15:31, 3 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. Missvain (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kassy Dillon[edit]

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

almost everything here is her own bio on the web pages of places she write for; the only true 3rd party ref seems to be a very short item no,.2, aboutone of her postings DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political commentator isn't an automatic notability freebie, regardless of whether the person is a liberal or a conservative. The notability test requires the ability to reference her work as a commentator to third party reliable source coverage and analysis about her work as a commentator in sources that don't sign her paycheques, and is not passed by either her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, or sources which briefly soundbite her in the process of being primarily about Andrew Yang. There's only one source here that counts for anything at all toward the notability test, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG per the above votes. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks in-depth, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for a journalist. This is true of many of our article on journalist, but we deal with what we have before us and do not let other short comings keep us with the ones we currently see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - she's written for notable but not reliable sources, so we can't even cite what she's written. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 4 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 merge to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms. Merge to whatever article. I don't know what exactly you have all settled on, but, I'll let all of you hash it out elsewhere. Missvain (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kara-Tur[edit]

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

PRODed last year by User:TTN. It was deprodded by (now blocked) User:User:Miraclepine who suggested a merge instead but without specifying the target. I reviewed the article and I concur with TTN this is mostly not salvageable (but - read on). Standard note fro me: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Moving besides the usual, the best this has going for it are the few sentences from the 'publication history' section, but they are all based on passing mentions; no source seems to have any in-depth analysis of this fictional location. The best we have is a single sentence from Bambra that this setting was inspired by real-world Asian culture. Doh. This is not enough, but this paragraph from our article could be mergable somewhere, I am just not sure what would be a good target (suggestions welcome). That aside, 95% of the current article is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:ALLPLOT as usual. We should preserve the few useful sentences from this somewhere, and that's about the best we can be expected to do, given Wikipedia =/= fandom wikia, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oriental Adventures, which is the notable product in which the setting was introduced. It looks like most of the "real world" publication and reception information here is already present there, so I don't think there's much that needs to be merged, but the history will be intact if people have anything they'd like to carry over. I'm just not finding any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the fictional location itself that would justify an independent article, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Oriental Adventures as Kara-Tur was originally developed as its setting for 1E D&D. The current mention on the list article of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings is adequate and doesn't need expansion.
Redirect - Same issues remain from the time of the PROD. This does not meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oriental Adventures. The one or two useful sentences of information can be added there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Oriental Adventures, there are a couple of sentences here that could be added there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are more sources than have been discussed so far. I have added more to WP:PRESERVE, which gives us a bit of critical commentary how Kara-Tur relates to Asia. And there is The Space Gamer magazine which has a two-and-a-half page article discussing Oriental Adventures and three adventures together, which has several paragraphs specifically dedicated to Kara-Tur, mostly with non-plot information. The sections focussing on the books also contain bits related to the fictional location. Together with the sources present in the article that should fullfill both WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT. I ask everyone to consider this new evidence. Daranios (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those added sources have extremely minimal coverage of Kara-Tur. The "Medieval Unmoored" has less than half a sentence, in a parenthesis of a footnote, that mentions it, that simply states "its was based on Asia". The "Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers" is even worse as its "coverage" of the fictional continent only includes two block quotes - one from an official D&D book, and the other from a Wikipedia article. If those sources are the best coverage that can be brought up, then there is no way this passes the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Collaborative Worldbuilding... indeed mainly tells us where Kara-Tur appears again in 5th edition. That was not what I was refering to. For "Medieval Unmoored", however, rather than taking out the part of the sentence where the word appears, I have looked at the whole paragraph(s) on pages 11 and 8 that it refers to. And that tells us, beyond "its was based on Asia", that Kara-Tur, like three other D&D locations the author looked at, is a distorted, simplistic take on medieval non-Western cultures seen through the Western lens of the designers. Consequently I have added two sentences of critical reception. Heroic Worlds also briefly covers the subject. Most importantly, you have ignored the Space Gamer article, the longest treatment in secondary sources I have seen so far. Daranios (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the Space Gamer article because it is a good source. However, it is the only good source - would go as far as saying it is basically the only source shown that actually rises above the level of "terrible" to being actually usable. And a single good source is not enough for an independent article. Moreover, while the article may talk about the setting beyond its initial origin in Oriental Adventures, it still does so using that product as the foundation and framework of the discussion, which just makes me think that we should do the same - an opinion that seems to be widely accepted in this AFD so far. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't agree with the other sources being non-usable, see below. As for a redirect/merge being widely accepted, that's when counting four opinions which did not take The Space Gamer into account. Daranios (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The sources are helpful, but the analysis is very short - effectively two-three sentences in each source. The Space Gamer just goes a bit deeper into which regions of Kara-Tur have been inspired by different regions of Asia (or periods of Asia history), but even that "longest treatment" is just two paragraphs in the form of "fictional region X is inspired by China, fictional region Y is inspired by Japan, etc.". Further, it is debatable whether ~what is primarily written about is the fictional land or the RPG setting of Oriental Adventures (the latter is clearly the focus of the Space Gamer review). Wouldn't the reader be best served if those references and whatever content is/can be referenced were to be merged to the OA article? On a side note, should we add IA search to {{FindSources}}? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that Kara-Tur the location spans the Oriental Adventures book and a number of adventure modules - that's what The Space Gamer covers - Realms adventures, novels, its own campaign setting and a number of appearances in further/newer publications, no, I don't think that combining that to Oriental Adventures is the best solution. If there is some duplication between what relates to the Oriental Adventures rules and Kara-Tur the location, what's the problem as Wikipedia is not paper? Of course I would prefer a merge to a deletion, but I think neither is warranted here. And, true, one part of the Space Gamer article is the more detailed analysis of what was inspired by what (and additionally that ideas about Japan were translated even into regions based on other cultures). But the section starting "will you like playing in the world of Kara-Tur?" is an evaluation of the setting beyond that, and clearly refers to the setting.

That the other sources are short leads into the usual disagreement: In my view, WP:GNG does not require sigificant coverage within any one source. It requires several sources, and it requires significant coverage overall, as the distinction the guideline makes is whether or not a non-stubby article can be created based on the sources. And again, putting the real-world inspirations, the reception I have added, the reception from Space Gamer and the publication history together with a reasonably-size description = plot-summary, fullfilling WP:WHYN should not be a problem.

Finding more sources is always good, but I did not get what "should we add IA search to {{FindSources}}" means, sorry. Could you explain? Daranios (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Another reason why I think merging to Oriental Adventures is not ideal for the reader is the fact that the 3rd edition version of the book focusses on Rokugan rather than Kara-Tur, which does not help clarity in a merge. Daranios (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms or Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Open minded on the target and we could try to form a consensus around that. At this point there isn't enough critical reception in reliable third party sources to write about this in the detail it has. There's a suitable merge target and maybe there's some hope of establishing the notability of this as a book and a product. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merging with Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms (I didn't realize an article on this sourcebook actually exists) seems to be the most sensible option compared to Oriental Adventures. As far as I know, no further sourcebooks have been published that exclusively focuses on the Kara-Tur setting, save for some supplemental information published in Dragon magazine for 3.5E years ago. Haleth (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I would also be fine with the target being Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms. Rorshacma (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's a good merge choice. Readers should find information on Kara-Tur in one article, not two. There's zero benefit in having two articles on essentially the same niche concept, particularly when one fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - With Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms being the most comprehensive single source on the topic, I am okay with merging. However, if we combine the two, we should merge Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms here, not the other way round, as Kara-Tur is both the more comprehensive subject, and the far likelier search term for anyone interested. Interestingly, the corresponding DMs Guild article shows us how the presentation of Kara-Tur is controversial nowadays, and it seems like that box is covered in Designers & Dragons, though I have no access to that. Daranios (talk) 08:23, 4 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 to Domain name#Fictitious domain name. Sandstein 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious Internet resource[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced since 2006. Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - It looks like at some point, the actual notable, sourced portions of this article were merged into Domain name#Fictitious domain name, leaving a chunk of unsourced, seemingly WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH material that is largely comprised of trivia. As the information on fictional domain names has already been merged elsewhere, and I'm not finding any reliable sources discussing much on fictional IP addresses, there is not anything here to keep. However, as material from here has been previously already merged to another article, I think we need to keep this as a Redirect there in order to preserve that history. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with leaving a redirect to keep the history. There is one article that links here,[29] and that link was added yesterday. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domain name#Fictitious domain name: Article looks like an WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 4 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 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vrable manse[edit]

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

I've been working through the unreferenced articles category for July 2007 and adding references to them. I, however, can't find anything for this article subject. Nothing of any note at all and i've tried looking through Slovakian news sources and still nothing. So, unless someone else can dig something up, this article fails WP:GNG and there's therefore no sourcing to meet WP:NBUILDING requirements. Silver seren^C 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vrable. I can’t find anything either. Mccapra (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG; redirect is an alternative although I'd question whether anyone would search this realistically Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources can be found to support this thing's existence, so it fails WP:V and GNG. It is also not mentioned at Vrable, and with no sources available it should not be, making a redirect useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:19, 2 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 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Management Studies[edit]

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

Not notable organization. All but one of its sources is the organization itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep The organization may not be that notable but some can be found on the web like In a recession, large firms are more likely than SMEs to resort to personnel cuts, Timothy Devinney – The Conversation, even a journal. If it is improved, It can be kept. — A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 12:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=> Response from the original author: Thank you for your feedback. I have added numerous links to external sources. The charity funds events and grants and supports one of the major journal in the field of management studies. It seems notable to me.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after improvement, still fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The sources that provide significant coverage are either not independent or not reliable or both. This is a regular charity doing regular charity things and this is not a directory of all "deserving" organizations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=> Response from the original author: Please let us know what is "significant coverage" and what sources exactly are not considered "independent" or "reliable". Without clear feedback, it is not clear how the page can be improved.

DELETE fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

=> Response from the original author: What is the SIRS test? I'm continuing to add external sources and references to the page. It is unclear what else can be done to improve the page.

Keep I have added a reference to a book on the history of UK business and management education which contains a paragraph on the notability of the establishment of this organization (please use this link to check that reference if desired). In addition, the fact that there are numerous references to this organization in the biographies of members of the trustee council appears to me to make it notable, in that the person discussed in the bio is listed as a member in the limited space often devoted to an introductory bio - in other words, membership of this organization is notable enough to the writer of the bio to mention it. Finally the association with a recognized academic journal also serves the notability argument.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning towards deletion, but would appreciate an analysis of any recently-added sources before making a final decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 00:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are extremely lack luster and clearly fail the notability guidelines. Just to break them down, 1 and 2 are both primary and basic business listings with no real details of the charity, in-depth or otherwise. Source 3 is about "The History of UK Business and Management Education" and does not discuss the company in-depth. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are are all primary sources, not independent of the charity, and do not talk about it in-depth or really otherwise except in passing. Source 19 has absolutely nothing about it and just contains a name drop of one of it's trustees. Finally, sources 20 and 21 have absolutely nothing to do with it either. So, 17 out of 21 sources are primary. One is only a brief mention if even that and the rest have nothing to do with subject of the article. Therefore, this unequivocally fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: 19 was suggested above by one of the comments. 20 and 21 are bios that mention the charity on website of prominent universities - so they don't have "nothing to do" with the topic. I would also disagree that sources are not independent - obviously, we are talking other organisations connected with the charity in the sense that they work together (what other organisations would report on a charity out of those that directly know about its activity?), but that does not mean they are not independent. CantabSoul 28 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was created less than a month ago by an inexperienced editor, cites almost no sources and a page issue was put in the article almost immediately. –Cupper52^{Talk to me!} 12:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer21 references seem to be quite a few sources to me. The judgement on my inexperience does not seem to have anything to do with the quality of the page. Editors need to start somewhere I guess. CantabSoul 28 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The comment about the inexperience of the editor should be discounted - what does that have to do with the value of the article? In addition, the editor has taken these comments here to heart and has tried to improve the article - cheers to that. Source 3 very clearly and directly supports the paragraph where it is used as a reference - which is what is asked for of a reference. I support keeping this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relies on primary sources far too much and still fails notability guidelines even after the page was changed. BJackJS talk 18:47, 2 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.