Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 06 January 08 >

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Simonds

[edit]
Sandra Simonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable writer MurielMary (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She appears to be an award winning poet and I see published reviews of her books. However I'm not an expert on poetry: perhaps the nominator can expand on their rationale? pburka (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two published interviews with her. One poetry award from a publisher (doesn't seem to be a notable/significant award). I don't think this is sufficient evidence of "regarded as an important figure" as per the notability guidelines for a writer. MurielMary (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviews from the L.A. Review of Books and University of Arizona establish notability as an author. At least her books are notable, and I'd rather have one article about the author than one for each notable work. I'm a keep. pburka (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three substantial reviews from reliable sources? I count two - one from LA Review of Books and one from U of Arizona Poetry Centre. MurielMary (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Evans

[edit]
Ayana Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable artist MurielMary (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references and text, as well as WP:NBIO and WP:POTENTIAL, convince me that this article is notable. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat which of the criteria listed at the link below does the subject meet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals MurielMary (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is sufficient critical commentary or analysis in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. A bit buried in all the primary sources and interviews perhaps, but it's there. I can only get Re-envisioning the contemporary art canon through an inter-library loan, so I have not yet checked that, but it looks like a reliable source. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, the article sufficiently meets the requirements on notability strengthened by reliable sources. See rundown of WP:CREATIVE checklist below: ::MurielMary

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

YES - artist

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

YES - See Franklin Furnace Award, New York Times feature article, Professorship at Brown University, and the inclusion in an art history text book. (Re-envisioning the Contemporary Art Canon: Perspectives in a Global World. Taylor & Francis). These source examples (recognition from notable non-profit/grant-giving body, mainstream press, and employment) show that the artist is widely notable within the art world - as a practitioner but also as an educator teaching the next generation - and beyond.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

YES - Signature Public Guerrilla style, technique. "I Just Came Here to Find a New Husband"-series gained popularity and recognition within the art world and the mainstream - see press coverage. This project was also widely recognized in the black music community for a time. In addition, Evans is praised for her public Guerrila style work - encompassing "I Just Came Here to Find Husband," but also the use of her signature catsuit including but not limited to "Operation Catsuit" - as mentioned in the New York Times article and Re-envisioning the Contemporary Art Canon: Perspectives in a Global World. Taylor & Francis. The signature catsuit has also from time to time had considerable street credibility and recognition in Chelsea, NY. Performance is not a new phenomenon nor is street performance or participataory performance, but Evan's queer-friendly, feminist, and camp style that merges high and low, incorporating black visual culture in traditionally white spaces, including the public space, and her visual language is unique and something that has begun to be appropriated by other artists through her teaching and the dissemination of her practice.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.

YES - "Operation Catsuit" and "I Just Came Here to Find a Husband"

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

YES - Independent reviews include New York Times, Hyperallergic, MadameNoire, NY Art Beat, AP Press, and the WP aricle lists many more (this is in addition to passing mentions in major art publication artnet and a number of blogazines)

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

B) YES - A substantial part of a significant exhibition. I quote from WP article: "The next year she completed a 10-hour endurance based, citywide performance and 100 person performative dinner party in the Barnes Foundation museum as part of "A Person of the Crowd" which was a major performance art survey featuring Marina Abramovic, Tania Bruguera, and William Pope L., among others." The Barnes Foundation is considered a significant art institution located in Philadelphia. It was founded by Albert Coombs Barnes (1872 – 1951) who, at the time, was avant-garde and a friend of the black community by inviting students of Lincoln University with a black president to collaborate, providing further context for the historical importance of Evan's large scale performance project. However, that is a side-note. In addition other notable venues that have shown Evan's work includes Museo Del Barrio, and Queens Museum.

It should be noted that Evan's is primarily a performance artist meaning that she has little physical work, nor does she have gallery representation. However, this is the case for many prominent performance and social practice based artists and should not constitute a reason to lessen her credibility. See also Suzanne Lacy who currently does not have a gallery but is leading in the field.

C) YES - Critical attention, as proved by awards, fellowships, articles, and exhibitions.

Editors note: On Wikipedia there is a lack of representation of African American artists, female artists, and performance artists - these individuals and groups are also marginalized beyond the Wikipedia sphere - in addition to being notable and recognized in the art world and the mainstream, the artist falls within these three categories of marginalized groups that we must give the representation and recognition that they deserve.

I appreciate the dedication from Chicdat who reviewed the article once it was developed from its insufficient form and the user on the chat that helped me get the article to that point. In addition, I noticed that an image has been added from another user. To me this proves that there are many users who are working to keep this article published.

For its clear notability and the issue of representation I urge the community to do all they can for this article to remain.

What is your response MurielMary?

Matriarch-info (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with this article is not that the subject is not notable, but that much of the article has been copy/pasted from copyrighted sources. That material MUST be removed and possibly revdel'd. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, when I run it through a plagiarism checker it only caught on to the Wikipedia articles and the quotes which are cited. Please give some indication to which parts are copy-pasted as I think you are incorrect and may be referring to the quotes. Matriarch-info (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vexations All amended. That was very helpful. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ayana+Evans&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Matriarch-info (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't agree with Matriarch-info's interpretation of the notability criteria in relation to this subject. For example, I don't agree that someone who is an associate professor and mentioned in one textbook meets the criteria of "important in their field/widely cited by peers". I also don't agree that the catsuit is a "significant new concept", given that it's only recognisable in Chelsea, NY (as per the explanation above). I don't agree that participation in the Barnes Foundation event qualifies for criteria 4 (how many performers were involved? Was her contribution significant?). Matriarch-info has also added information above which doesn't relate to the WP criteria for notability e.g. that there are several editors working on this article (not measured towards a person's notability); that she is a member of under-represented groups (also not measured towards a person's notability). MurielMary (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the objections that MurielMay raises against claims of notabilty. Those claims are either not supported by policy at all, or idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. Having said that, after reading all the sources I was able to access, I find that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. What that practically means to me is that if I were to start the article from scratch, using only the information provided by those sources used now that are by consensus considered independent and reliable, I'd be able to write an article that comprehensively covers the subject. I support Keep. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I randomly looked at a few of the references (i.e. NYTimes.com), and they seem to meet WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samepage

[edit]
Samepage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no third party coverage in reliable sources; the software's entire claim to notability seems to be a couple reviews. The page is written like an advertisement with no content other than documentation of its features and the company's capital history. FalconK (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2013-01 ✗ G11
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 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bly, California

[edit]
Bly, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In this case it's not so much a case of "label drift" as it is "just stick the name somewhere else." It's a little difficult to sort due to a key gap in topo coverage in the 1930s-'40s, but most topos show Bly as a label for a wye junction and its accompanying sidings some distance to the east of the GNIS location, which explains both the "named by railroad officials" part and the supposed older name of Bly Junction (unattested to by the maps). The junction lies across a map boundary, so the name appears on both sides of the line except on one map which abruptly places it more or less where GNIS has it. This map is supposedly from 1960 but I have to doubt this, based on the style; it looks to me to date from some time before 1950. At any rate, maps that are obviously more recent label the junction and not this spot, which by that point is well within the burgeoning San Bernadino/Riverside/LA megalopolis. Any map that shows buildings in that area shows it to be part of a great swath of inner suburban housing. Bly doesn't seem to be a notable rail spot, and even if it were the name of this neighborhood, which I doubt as well, it's not a settlement in its own right and never has been. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Lester Warden

[edit]
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 per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lester Warden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92Talk 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus here is that this individual does not pass the general notability guideline. ~ mazca talk 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sheraz

[edit]
Mohammad Sheraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 80 Lahore City cricketers including some international cricketers with threadbare article content and/or zero references. Bobo. 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to getting notable. We may avoid reaching 1 million biographies of living people this year after all considering how many cricket player articles that do not even remotely come close to meeting the GNG we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all about rabid exclusionism after all? That's why this seems so suspicious. This has nothing to do with numbers... this is about having facts, presented in Wikipedia articles. Why are the numbers so important? If people spent as much time working on articles (as I did) as they do about trying to "assess" them for inclusion, we might have a project that wasn't trying to destroy itself... Bobo. 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A wider conversation seems to need to happen around this and articles within this narrow category. If anyone would like to pursue the merge and redirect option, please do via the article talk page or another suitable venue. Daniel (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Livingstone (cricketer)

[edit]
Thomas Livingstone (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - from memory there were considerable efforts in making lists of New Zealand representative cricketers as there are. May be worth looking through all of them as well. Eitherway most of these lists have already been made. Bobo. 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that there are other sports covered on Wikipedia, right? To an even more complete extent than the cricket project. If the people protesting against article inclusion were helping to enhance coverage, we wouldn't be in this situation. As it is, only three of us have been bothered to do the legwork. And we were wondering all along why others weren't helping. And now look where we are. Bobo. 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore Lambert - you can see from the countless prods on his talkpage he's in no position to rant about GNG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, Lugnuts, you know better than that. There is not just one person at fault here for wanting to decimate the project. Stay cool. Bobo. 17:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooooo... don't link people to other lists of cricketers. It will simply make them realize other articles exist! Rookie mistake, my friend. Bobo. 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about it being fairly unsatisfactory and under much debate, but at present it (the strong consensus you mention) has not reached a point where the rule has been changed and on the basis of the current wording Livingstone satisfies the conditions for entry however tenuous they may be. NealeFamily (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the article is that it says that "He scored 14 runs during his first-class career, all of which came in a single innings, against Southland. Livingstone was a lower-order batsman." which is probably true, but the article fails to mention he was in the team as a bowler and did actually take a few wickets. Initials TO in some reports which would indicate he was the Thomas Oliver Livingston (no "e") born in 1889, died 26 May 1956 in Sydney. see The Sydney Morning Herald 28 May 1956 back page. So needs a rename I suspect. Nigej (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list. A single source that does nothing but list statistics doesn't seem very compelling for a standalone article; I didn't look very hard for news about the guy but it really doesn't seem like much is going to turn up (he died in 1956). But since there is already a list made for him to live in, I think that could be his home. Deleting this content seems unimaginably silly to me. jp×g 10:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to undelete if sourcing is located, in line with GNG/SPORTCRIT, or to permit merging in the event that an appropriate list is created later. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Afridi

[edit]
Asad Afridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sukkur will have significantly more redlinked players than many other sides, having participcated in 22 first-class matches. To go into making lists of all these redlinks seems unnecessary right now. Bobo. 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, this article was created nearly 12 years ago. When people had respect for the aims of the project. The fact that nobody - including the people who participate in AfDs - attempts to improve the articles, is their own choice. To compare what people were aiming to achieve then, which was a completed project, and what is being achieved now, which is... the opposite... is like comparing apples and oranges. Bobo. 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. As an ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Habib

[edit]
Majid Habib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to request a WP:REFUND if the content is needed in assembling a List of Faisalabad cricketers list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Ahmed (cricketer, born 1972)

[edit]
Naseer Ahmed (cricketer, born 1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a list needs to be created, then so be it. It can be created, I'm sure. Faisalabad have 262 matches to search fhrough - and thus a List of Faisalabad cricketers might be useful. I can't help but think that there is more to look through in Category:Faisalabad cricketers. Bobo. 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to request a refund if someone wants to make a List of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited cricketers list and merge in the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1969)

[edit]
Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1969) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how you feel about your own article creations too? Are they "not really" articles? Why were they deleted? Bobo. 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. However, feel free to request a WP:REFUND if assembling a List of East Pakistan Whites cricketers list where this content may be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Umar (East Pakistan cricketer)

[edit]
Mohammad Umar (East Pakistan cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's possible to create a list. We need to make sure not to get mixed up between East Pakistan, East Pakistan Greens, East Pakistan Whites. 33 matches in total to search through. Bobo. 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. However, feel free to request a WP:REFUND if a List of Sukkur cricketers article is to be assembled. Content may be merged there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid Mohsin

[edit]
Sajid Mohsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. I don't what is useful to read about in such articles. Are we here to read that how he scored 3 runs in the first innings and 4 not out in the second? What an achievement! Störm (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Useful"? Facts are useful. That's why they exist. If someone wishes to come along and look for facts, there they are. If people decide to selectively remove facts, these facts become hidden. We're moving into existentialism now. You could argue that no facts are "useful", merely interesting. Bobo. 22:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete and total failure of GNG, which is our minimum inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically that depends which of the inclusion criteria on WP:N you wish to read and follow. And that's precisely the problem, that the criteria contradict each other as to whether subject specific guidelines are to override GNG. When I was first made aware of GNG, I was of the impression - and probably told - that GNG was to only be applied when a specific SSG could not be applied. Note that WP:N says "or the criteria outlined in a subject specific notability guideline." The basic guideline page to which we are taken, specifically says that subject specific criteria can override GNG. Want to get that changed? That's not something that can be achieved in a series of AfD discussions. Bobo. 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need. NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not override GNG; the first paragraph of NSPORT makes that quite clear. This status has been reinforced many times over. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is the first thing we learn on our first day on the project. By using weasel words like "likely" and "presumed", NSPORT is basically a way to weasel out of guidelines that have been there from day one. Words which serve absolutely no purpose other than exclusionism for exclusionism's sake, based on flouting NPOV, which we also learn on our first day on the project. I thought we were supposed to avoid weasel words. Bobo. 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V comes first surely. Do you remember learning about WP:Disruptive editing? wjematherplease leave a message... 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue "disruptive editing" consisted of putting AfD notices on articles at random rather than enhancing articles. But y'know. Each to their own. Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo. 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with List of Southern Punjab cricketers. Having closed a similar AFD with this result today, applying this result for consistency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrit Lal (1960s Southern Punjab cricketer)

[edit]
Amrit Lal (1960s Southern Punjab cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consistency with previous closes would suggest a merge with List of Gujranwala cricketers but no such article exists. As the consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG criteria I am closing as delete, but feel free to request a WP:REFUND if content is needed to assemble a list of Gujranwala cricketers as suggested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ayub (cricketer, born 1965)

[edit]
Mohammad Ayub (cricketer, born 1965) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that completely passed me by - how that has stayed there for heaven knows how long, that's entirely my fault. Or rather, those who haven't been interested in improving article content. Apologies for confusing the issue. Bobo. 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't having a dig. Apologies if it came across that way. Spiderone 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry. That was just me being cynical about the current state of what is going on. That comment wasn't directed towards anyone particular, I'm just surprised by my being remiss. Bobo. 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be worth creating List of Gujranwala cricketers as it is. 68 matches to search through and in any case, I've always believed these lists should exist anyway. Bobo. 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers. This article has slightly more text than the two other articles on Pakistani cricketers, but the merits of the subject are the same. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (Pakistan Air Force cricketer)

[edit]
Mohammad Naeem (Pakistan Air Force cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. The classic example (why we should get rid of such articles). Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that if the people who were busy destroying the project were trying to build it up instead. But you can't have your cake and eat it. Bobo. 16:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting for the sake of being pragmatic, if we go to the stage of employing this for every team, we need to make sure every team has a comprehensive list of players in individual List of X cricketers articles. Something which I've been saying for the best part of the last fifteen years. Something which, not so long ago, almost every single person on the project was dead set against, even though they claim it is necessary now. How times change...
Strangely enough, it is me who is responsible for the compiling of most of these lists too. It's almost as if it's only the people who wanted to enhance the project were doing. Weird, that. Never mind. It's not as if I want to take any credit for doing that, any more than I want to take credit for enhancing the encyclopedia in this way. Bobo. 17:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC. Perhaps the expectation that minimal stubs would at some point be expanded has been replaced with the realisation that that is never going to happen because substantial sources simply do not exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not going to happen because the articles which are being questioned are mostly those worked on by only three editors, including myself. (I can't help but think there are only three people who have been bothered to do the legwork...) But we're getting off the point. My argument is, as it always has been, that these List of X articles would exist not just for the sake of existing but for the sake of navigation as well. It wasn't until long ago that every single person who would be commenting on these AfDs would have been dead set against articles like List of Gwalior cricketers. I hope you can understand my side of the argument here. Bobo. 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. General consensus that the subject barely meets one of the presumptive notability criteria of WP:NCRIC, but the complete lack of indeendent sourcing is an overriding concern. Since there is a reasonable redirect target where the subject is mentioned, and that has been suggested as an option by many, placing one here appears to be the most appropriate outcome. I am adding the year that Mr. Ahmed played. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Ahmed (WAPDA cricketer)

[edit]
Naseer Ahmed (WAPDA cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Repeating my comment from Zia Ahmed's AfD page. Any other WAPDA cricketers to be looked at? There are considerably more WAPDA cricketers than many other categories, including at least four articles of players with international appearances and threadbare article prose content. Bobo. 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to discuss each individual cricketer in a separate AfD rather than bundling them. Spiderone 22:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. More discussion still needs to happen on WT:CRIC as to content of List of X players articles too. Bobo. 22:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It staggers me just as much that there are, in the main, only three editors, including myself, out of several million who were even bothered to do the legwork. I would respect conversations such as this if the people who involved themselves in these conversations also involved themselves in improving the project. Bobo. 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But the argument posited in this AfD is different, and thus it is being answered differently. Bobo. 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike many other teams, at least there is a list for WAPDA. Bobo. 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Crossing, California

[edit]
Newton's Crossing, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I honestly don't think this is was an actual community, rather just a point where the road crossed the river and Newton lived. The article itself states that Newton owned the place and that it was a house and 160 acres of land, which screams "ranch, not a community". This calls it the point where the Stockton Road crosses the Cowchilla River. The source also states that since the Cowchilla meandered and was cut up with irrigation ditches, it was impossible to locate the exact spot of the crossing. Now, if there was truly a community here, why would determining the location depend on finding which irrigation ditch was truly the Cowchilla? There's several similar newspapers.com results, as well as a few for a railroad project that doesn't seem to be related. Not in Gudde, and there's no GNIS entry for the exact spelling "Newton's Crossing", although since GNIS is mostly useless for determining notability, I didn't check variants. The coverage is generally pretty light, and I don't think it adds up to WP:GNG, and since this was evidently a river crossing where somebody had a ranch, WP:GEOLAND isn't met either. Hog Farm Bacon 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. See first AfD; self-promotional article created by a series of socks. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajol Aikat

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kajol Aikat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of non-notable author written by the subject, I suspect. References are weak; you can find a few more deletions in the history, of interviews published on non-notable websites. There is no reliable secondary sourcing, and following the links for the books shows they were self-published, via CreateSpace. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anipong Kijkam

[edit]
Anipong Kijkam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; not one single appearance that would qualify him for the latter and the coverage is insufficient for GNG. Mentions in the media are trivial; for example, this and this were among the best. Spiderone 21:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A discussion to merge can happen after this AfD, if required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Heights, California

[edit]
Arnold Heights, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states that "All of Arnold Heights has been bulldozed and it no longer exists," It appears that it no longer exists (which is true, but is really WP:OR given that one has to look at aerials to conclude this) but given that neighborhoods are rarely so summarily destroyed without controversy, one must wonder why. Well, it turns out (according to this source the development was base housing for March AFB, and one may deduce that it was gotten rid of when the base was reduced to a reserve post as a result of BRAC closures. Maybe this should be merged to the base article, but at any rate I'm not finding that it was a notable settlement per se. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could find very little about it other than the assertion that it was base housing; I couldn't even source its demolition. But I would concur that the consensus towards merging is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. However, several lists of cricketers for various teams have been made. If someone needs the content to assemble a List of Bahawalpur cricketers, please request a WP:REFUND. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Ahmed

[edit]
Zia Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - assuming this is truly necessary, are there other names to be found within the same category? There are a significant number more Bahawalpur cricketers than many other sides. Perhaps scrolling through 54 names involves too much wasted effort... interestingly, these include at least two ODI names and one Test name with threadbare articles. I'd have more respect for this effort to destroy the project if people worked on expanding the "more notable" names before sending names like this to AfD... Mind you, wasted effort 'n' all that... Bobo. 21:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to reply. Bahawalpur have 222 first-class matches. That's a lot for people to be searching through to create List of Bahawalpur cricketers... Bobo. 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs

[edit]
Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, though searching their name does give a fair number of results, none of them are anything beyond a sentence, and nothing that actually explains who they are or what they do. Loafiewa (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Chichkala

[edit]
Kristina Chichkala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of anything that comes even close to being significant coverage in a Russian language search. The Russian Wikipedia article is only referenced to a trivial mention and this brief article on the website of a club that she played for. Fails WP:GNG on evidence seen so far. Spiderone 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. This is a close question, as many of the "keep" votes lack supporting evidence or a foundation in policy. However, some do speak to the possibility of improvement with sources not presently found in the article. The absence of consensus does not spare this article from being renominated for deletion at a future point if additional reliable sources containing sufficiently in-depth coverage of the subject are not provided. BD2412 T 03:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roey Peleg

[edit]
Roey Peleg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a social activist who does not seem to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. I see passing mentions and quotes from him as a spokesperson but nothing to suggest that he as an individual has attracted the kind of interest that would demonstrate notability. May be too soon. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Per your request; Read up: https://news.walla.co.il/item/3407417 | https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/protest2020/.premium-1.9309309 | https://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/2020_q3/Article-72e3cf191e36471027.htm | https://www.timesofisrael.com/dozens-demonstrate-against-netanyahu-near-private-home-in-caesarea/ | https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4295757,00.html--Omer Toledano (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did not want to !vote delete, but couldn't find anything but mentions. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements and this article does not have SIGCOV. The above Keeps fail to provide any sources to backup their votes. He is obviously well known, but per WP:N being well known is not a substitute for SIGCOV is IS RS. Again this is a BLP about a hot topic and needs to strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are in Hebrew and there's a lot of puffery going on so it is hard to separate the facts from the fiction. For example, Peleg clearly isn't a "leading activist[]s in the struggle to find a cure for ALS" He may have had a role in the submarine protests, but how significant his role was is impossible to tell. ImTheIP (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Peleg is a known activist and a leading protest figure in Israel. It has Encyclopedic importance. Laliv g (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is importance. Peleg is one of the well-known activists in the protest.BAswim (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t think there us any doubt that Peleg is well-known in Israel but for Wikipedia, notability is established by sustained in-depth coverage, and this has still not been shown. Of the links shared by Omer Toledano I can’t read much of the piece in HaAretz as I’m not a subscriber but it’s clearly about the protests and not about Peleg. The Ynet news piece won’t open for me. Mako news us about him but it’s an interview, and the rest are passing mentions about his arrest. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the link [4] - it is open, free, and at least you will be able to judge his results in Ironman Triathlon and Ultraman (endurance challenge)--Yoavd (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: this discussion is over the mandatory 7 days and a consensus has been reached to Keep the article. Please close the discussion and remove the template. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll wait for an admin to close it. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Omer. Please close the discussion and remove the template.--היידן (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Weak keep. Discounting votes of a couple of blocked socks and a couple of votes which are not policy-based, I get 61 deletes/redirects and 119 keeps, which is roughly 1:2. If I look at the arguments, both sides have valid arguments. Those who argue for keeping say that the article meets WP:GNG since it has several dozens of high-quality sources. Those who argue for deletion cite WP:ONEEVENT, however, they get an objection that media have written about the subject of the article even before the attack for which he is mainly (in)famous. The objection to this reasoning was that media coverage prior to the event was much weaker and possibly would not meet WP:GNG - however, I do not see arguments of one of the sides convincingly refuted. As votes split 1:2, it means two-thirds of the users who participated in the discussion (and these are mostly good-faith users) believe that the GNG argument is stronger than ONEEVENT, and I can not close this as no consensus (which I would have probably done for an even split). I do not see any pile-up votes towards the end of the discussion, or any change of the trend, meaning that most users were not convinced by the opposite side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Angeli

[edit]


Jake Angeli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Being a QAnon believer and part of the group that stormed the Capitol is not enough to warrant notability/an article. Andise1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when someone is known for attending rallies, as opposed to organizing or speaking at them, they are clearly not notable. Not that most people who speak at or organize rallies are notable, however you almost always have to do one of those other two things to make you notable. I would also bring up not news, but I see no indication that Angeli is even newsworthy for his actions yesterday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the fact that he attended a rally is 1E and not in-depth, but there is also extensive coverage of him speaking at rallies other than at the insurrection yesterday, as well as his activities organizing an extremist social movement online. After discounting the superficial coverage of him that is focused on his physical appearance or rally attendance, there is plenty left over to satisfy GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, no offense, but your personal opinion here is just as irrelevant as every other wikipedia contributors personal opinion. We rely on RS here, not our personal opinions. I am sure you are as well aware as I am that Jake Angeli's notability comes not from his mere presence at rallies and insurrections. His notability comes from the editors of RS choosing to cover his participation at those rallies, at the insurrection, in meaningful detail. If you think you have meaningful, substantive, policy-based counter-arguments, that would erode the notability established by the substantial RS coverage of his participation, then that is what your comments here should contain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Angeli is an actor, voice over artist and singer.. He is just playing a part. To allow him his own entry is to give oxygen to his duplicitous shenanigans [which seem to have most here fooled].At the very least, do some actual research, rather than just regurgitate whatever the media say. [note: Backstage casting have removed his profile since yesterday] [5] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Livingstone (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2021 January 8 (UTC)
If you say, "To allow him his own entry is to give oxygen to his duplicitous shenanigans" as if that were an argument in support of deletion. It is not. In fact, deletion promotes the continuation of "duplicitous shenanigans" without the harsh light of public attention. In fact, you've articulated a rationale for starting the article in the first place. 70.171.155.43 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And even if this were true, this is not a reason to delete. Notability is a property of a page subject. Even a page about a notable subject that is written with a COI in the interest of self-promotion should be rewritten, not deleted. This is definitely not a situation that calls for WP:TNT. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr zappe, please sign your comments properly.
Mr zappe, are you sure you understand our neutrality policy? Of course articles should never be used for advocacy. But, if we had an article on a genuinely notable BLP individual, that was written in a promotional manner, that is NOT grounds for deletion. Weak articles on genuinely notable topics are supposed to be re-written to correct those lapses, not deleted.
In 2005, when I was a newbie, I crossed paths with a rogue administrator, who advanced a very similar argument to yours. She argued that we shouldn't have ANY articles on a wide range of topics, because those topics were "inherently biased" and would just serve as an excuse for "America bashing".
Her claims were complete bullshit, of course. Because I was a newbie, I had to think about this, for a few hours. I concluded that topics were not, themselves, biased. I concluded only actual versions of articles could show bias. I concluded that there was no notable topic that couldn't have a neutrally written article written about it.
That was true in 2005 and it is true now. If you think you have a genuine POV concern with this article that you can explain, the appropriate place to explain it would be Talk:Jake Angeli. Geo Swan (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make quite a valid point. I wasn’t for the deletion of this article because it would serve as an excuse for "America bashing" but because when I initially ran across this article it seemed like an insignificant individual who was being glorified because of his prominence in news photographs. Based on the controversy surrounding this person and the amount of debate that seems to be surrounding the deletion of this article, maybe my first impressions weren't merited. Mr Zappe (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are more than enough in-depth articles about him to satisfy WP:GNG. Importantly, these profiles are not mostly WP:1E coverage, but are contextualizing his involvement in that event by describing his position as one of the most consistently prominent members of a major extremist social movement. In addition to the several independent in-depth profiles in reliable sources that are already cited in the article, it is extremely easy to find more in-depth sources in various RS. Here are just a few arbitrary ones, in The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. He is mentioned by name in the first two headlines, and the articles focus substantially on him, while the latter story calls him "well-known", so, notable beyond this one event. And more examples can be found by searching his name. Further backing up the objection to a 1E deletion, we can indeed find non-trivial news coverage of him (if not necessarily particularly in-depth coverage) from before yesterday, such as mentions and photos in the Daily Herald, the State Journal-Register, and AZCentral. This is more than enough for GNG, and the fact that they are contextualizing his participation in this one event in the context of broader notoriety should allay any 1E concerns. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tremendous amount of media sources on this figure, quite clearly notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's been less than a day since he came to wide public notice. I think it's likely that there will be coverage of his interactions with law enforcement in the coming days. Readers will be coming to Wikipedia looking for unbiased, neutral information on him free of conspiracy theory spin, and we should be that resource. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not 1E as he is a notorious member of such far-right events, and has become something of an icon for factions. Broad coverage of his involvement over a long enough period to pass GNG. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no doubt we will be hearing more on him as time progresses. He has already become a much-represented face of the storming and the media has performed extensive coverage on him. Although we currently have very few details about him, when he is inevitably arrested by the FBI and as the prosecution of so many progresses, we will know more on him.— Bigtime_Boy (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not notable enough. He can be mentioned in the relevant articles of which he has been involved. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Azcolvin429, Not notable enough... based on sourcing? Care to comment on coverage?, otherwise just sounds like a personal opinion/preference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another Believer Hoenstly, based on how dedicated you seem to be keeping this article from being deleted, seems like personal opinion/preference that you think this guy deserves recognition.
        • Will you please stop with all the assumptions. I'm not very dedicated to keeping this page at all. In fact, I've not even voted to keep this article. I created a very short stub and I've asked for clarification from a couple editors here. My life goes on just fine if this article is deleted, so please stop assuming I have any motives here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being one of millions who supported President Trump and attending his rallies does not make you notable. If he is brought to trial for storming the Capitol while wearing a costume perhaps he could have a byline on the QAnon page. Vegetationlife (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Information about this figure could be appropriately contained within the events articles or QAnon's article. ~RAM (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy is on the best way to become an internally known terrorist. Sloper ✉ 21:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloper (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. The toothpaste is already out of the tube. It's important for people to know what this guy is up to, what he says, and what he does. Wikipedia is a great place for information to be quickly and easily shared and easily corrected if it's wrong. Elon Musk's meme tweet with his image makes him even more notable, and it's important for people to know that just 'cos you have a fancy costume doesn't make you a Burner or hold burner values. Darrell Duane 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduane (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. But article does need to be better written and resourced. There has to be more done on his background. Shelyric (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete No SUSTAINed coverage (every source is 6 January 2021 or later). Prior to this event, no sourcing existed about him outside of blogs and podcasts, as far as I can tell. This can be draftified and revisited in the future. Seems like there's enough on second look. Jlevi (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jlevi, some BLP individuals have their initial notability factors masked when they get a lot of news coverage over a highly prominent recent event.
  • If you look at the early revision history for Chesley Sullenberger you will see there were close to a dozen good faith individuals who tried to delete the new article on him, or blank it, or redirect it to the article on the flight number.
  • I strongly suspected that, even though we had not had an article on him, prior to the landing. Searching for the other notability factors strained my google-fu abilities, as they were strongly obfuscated by tens of thousands of repetitive new article on the landing.
  • Angeli isn't anywhere near as notable as Captain Sully, but he did receive press coverage prior to the coup.
  • Please bear in mind that earlier notability factors can be obfuscated, when they are involved in a highly prominent recent event in any AFD you weigh in on in future. Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except Angeli and Babbitt are very different figures. Angeli was a known entity and pseudo-leader before the storming. Babbitt died, name got circulated because of the event and not because even her death was notable. Kingsif (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too early to create an article on someone who has been mentioned briefly in the media. This is a knee-jerk reaction to 15 seconds of fame. 215lax (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — lots of news coverage. Comfr (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The discussion about this individual has already come up at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and it was agreed it was more appropriate that information about him should stay on this page, and not there. I was actually going to post about him on the page for the event, or for Jamiroqaouia, as there are a number of articles about him, including one that interviewed him. However, rather than it go on those two pages, it should really be posted here - so this article is useful in keeping the information off those two pages at least. While he seemed to have come to notoriety in the storming of the capital, he in fact has been interviewed and discussed in articles before that event, even going back to last year, so arguably, his notoriety is not related to just one event. Clearly, there is substantial RS discussing him, even from International sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear and has been established. macgirl (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The person in question is not notable except for wearing a homemade chewbacca outfit and committing a federal crime based on zero evidence; after the actions of the 6th, he's just one more face in a crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.214.49.219 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am glad I was able to learn who this person was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:1E9C:E900:45F6:57A8:AEDA:6BD4 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as was said above - a lot of news coverage, not only related to the Capitol event. I also agree with the above IP comment, as I came here with the same motivation. We record notable information about the world and we have the advantage and space to do it in its complexity. I don't think it's just a 15 seconds of fame, the information may serve future researchers to create more plastic image and descripiton of what happened in our era. Deletion would be a disservice to our readers and to our encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination, and many of the delete opinions, are classic instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No, merely being a supporter or QAnon, or any other movement, is not enough to make someone notable. But massive and substantial coverage by RS does make one notable, it always has. Nominator's enormous mistake here is to forget he or she is not an RS themselves. I am not an RS, Jimbo Wales is not an RS, and our nominator is not an RS. Our nominator is trying to use AFD for editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's worth seeing how this develops and there is enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I might find him a contemptible person, he's become notable, even infamous recently. RS exists. Notability is there. Can't say anything else because I find him objectionable. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - We'll see what he does later down the road, but I was only able to hear about this guy because of what he did at the Capitol. Nothing he did before then really stood out. Love of Corey (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage, including prior to this event (AIUI). The impression of attempting to unperson protesters and rioters is being made, even if that's not intended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Appears primarily to be of more interest than anyone else who participated in the event solely because of his efforts to appear visually distinctive. An attention-seeking costume doesn't constitute notability. If he hadn't appeared in photos looking outlandish, we wouldn't even be discussing him at all, there are no notable deeds. Also, WP:ONEEVENT, would we be having this conversation if not for his appearing in photos of a single event which occurred less than 36 hours ago? I don't think so. He could still easily be totally forgotten by the next turn of the 24-hour news cycle. He may yet become notable; but he is not currently. He ain't Ted Williams. SteubenGlass (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that we on Wikipedia have a lengthy discussion about him. Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has an obligation to the international public - on internet search sites - to counter misinformation on internet that he is Antifa DancingPhilosopher (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem he will be notable outside of what he did in the Capitol buliding. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has become a symbol of Trumpist fascism, and deleting him would be deleting history. 12:53 (UTC) 8 January 2021 — Weyenst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep He is trending on internet search engines and Wikipedia is the most relevant place to get information about him. He'll also likely be arrested and tried as ringleader of an extremely notable event. This is such an obvious *Keep* that even considering deletion is laughable. That he is only notable now after his participation in the storming of the capitol building is irrelevant. Fstring (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All world best site (as New York Times, Washington post, The Guardian, The indipendent and more) talk in depth about Jake Angeli, and he is one of the cape of attack to capitol hill. His picture under capital hill with viking dress is doing world tour 5.179.159.9 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether we like it or not his image will live on. His fate will be of interest to people. He is also the subject of conspiracy theories so good info on him is for the public good.Óli Gneisti (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual. Clear example of WP:1E. No non-trivial coverage in WP:RS prior to this singular event. Also fails WP:CRIME. Few sentences that may be worth preserving should be merged into the main article. Melmann 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Melmann, could you please explain, more fully, why you discount the coverage of Angeli that predates the attempt to seize the Capitol building? Did he measure up to our notability criteria, prior to January 6th? (1) Maybe. (2) I don't know. (3) I don't think it matters. I suggest the fact that he did receive meaningful news coverage, prior to January 6th, is a complete refutation of your claim he is an instance of a BLP1E. I am pinging Darryl Kerrigan whose comment is just a WP:ATA lapsing me too. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Geo Swan. I think Melmann's and my comments are clear enough, but I will add to them below so you can better understand. He is only notable for one event, the other rally/protests are not notable. Have a good day.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darryl Kerrigan, we have some special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN, which state that a person, like a politician, can have their notability established by a single factor. However, those BLP individuals who had their notability established by a single factor are a small minority of BLP articles. Almost all our BLP articles had their notability established by considering multiple notability factors. I am going to repeat this important point. Almost all our BLP articles had their notability established by considering multiple notability factors.
  • You write "...the other rally/protests are not notable." Okay, and where can we look for your explanation for why the earlier coverage of Angeli should not be considered in calculating his notability?
  • I requested you review WP:ATA. I repeat that request.
  • If you were the editor of an RS, your personal opinion as to whether Angeli's partcipation in earlier protests was or wasn't notable would matter. It would matter because, as the editor of an RS, you would have the authority to spike stories on Angeli. You would be allowed to exercise your personal bias, knowing if you risked exercising your bias the wrong way, too many times, your publisher might admonish you, or even demote or fire you.
  • I am not an RS, and you are not an RS. So, quit acting like an RS. Quit acting like your personal, unsupported opinion of Angeli mattered. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reference to WP:POLITICIAN, but I don't think that applies here. It generally applies to international, national, or state/provincial office holders. He is a protester/rioter whose only claim to notability is the colourful costume he wore in this WP:ONEEVENT. He wore a similar costume at at least one other event but the source on that point does not create notability. Is everyone photographed here notable? I think that is a silly suggestion. One pre-event source which simply includes a photo and caption does not confer notability. There is a reason nearly all of the sources cited in his article are dated January 6, 2021 or later: he is notable for one event only. He probably should be mentioned in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article (as he currently is), but I do not see any RS that establish notability. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darryl Kerrigan, you are evading the key point of why I brought up POLITICIAN. A few BLP individuals have their notability established by a single factor - holding office at the State or Federal level -- but almost all BLP individuals have their notability established by multiple notability factors. Angeli is an example of the vast majority of BLP individuals - someone whose notability is established by multiple factors. I am going going to repeat this, since you apparently haven't understood. Almost all BLP individuals have their notability established by multiple notability factors.
  • No one has argued that his appearance in his colorful costume, and the interviews he provided, prior to the January 6th insurrection, were enough to claim he had already met the GNG criteria. If RS had noted his colorful costume, and interviewed him many many times, at dozens of events, he would, eventually, measure up to GNG, even if each event, individually, did not confer much notability.
  • The point you haven't addressed is that even if the earlier interviews didn't confer much notability, the prior coverage does confer more than enough notability for it to be a misuse of BLP1E to claim he is only known for one event.
  • I invite you to consider whether it looks like you may have so much personal disdain for Angeli that you were unable to bring yourself to perform an effective web search. You refer only to his attendance at earlier events. However, if you had performed a meaningful and effective web search you would see coverage of him that goes far beyond his mere attendance at earlier events. For instance, there are multiple serious attempts to decode and explain the meaning of the symbols he tattooed on his body. There are multiple serious attempts to respond to the alt-right meme that the insurrection was not the work of Trump supporters, but that the real damage was done by covert agents of Antifa. There is an image of Angeli talking to someone identified as an antifa person. This photo was, apparently, a key element of the meme the insurrection was really the work of antifa. The image is apparently real, but had been cropped deceptively, and had a more plausible explanation that did not require him to be an antifa mole. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan However, if you had performed a meaningful and effective web search you would see coverage of him that goes far beyond his mere attendance at earlier events. For instance, there are multiple serious attempts to decode and explain the meaning of the symbols he tattooed on his body. can you please provide those reliable sources? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That last one, written by a Professor of Old English, explained the meaning of five of Angeli's tattoos,
  1. Mjölnir - "Thor's Hammer"
  2. Yggdrasill - the Norse world tree
  3. valknut - three intersecting triangles, sometimes called “Hrungnir’s Heart”, named after a famous giant warrior, seen as a symbol of death
  4. Sonnenrad, or sun-wheel - a favourite of Heinrich Himmler
  5. Othala runic letter - "its name means 'inherited land', and so it frequently appears in the emblems of white nationalist groups from Ukraine to the US."
This is just scratching the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles about his tattoos do not seem to be WP:RS and they seem pretty trivial. You were asked about your claim that there is significant coverage from before January 6, 2021. Both of these articles are from after.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will ignore your comments that run afoul of WP:AGF. No, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't think his role in this one event leads to notability. He was one of the many rioters who entered the Capitol. He doesn’t appear to have organized it, or had any special role in it. You keep saying there are all these other "pre-riot" sources we are all ignoring. I have addressed some below, and why I think the mention is trivial. If you think the commenters should consider others you should link them here instead of just accusing everyone of not seeing what you claim to see in them. All of the pre-riot coverage I have seen amounts to captioned photos and interviews of a "man in a crowd". As I have said below, I think those interviews are because the movements are notable, not because he is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
@Geo Swan:, in line with Darryl Kerrigan, I invite you to link us what you consider to be non-trivial coverage of this individual previous to, and devoid of the context of, Capitol storming. I have not been able to find such, and I am hopeful that you have a stack of those as you seem to indicate. Based on what I've been able to ascertain, his independednt coverage prior to the riots amounts to being a photogenic example of a pro-Trump protester which RSes like to use as a cover photo. Thank you. Melmann 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. But per WP:OTHERLANGS that says nothing about the notability of this one, so is of no relevance to this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after incorporating sources to the article, it now demonstrates notable coverage back to 2019. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: stub started by me). Clearly notable now per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG and the storming of the Capitol wasn't the only thing he did or has done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability supported by multiple secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at this point he's clearly notable. Volunteer Marek 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete Per WP:BLP1E, a person would not be notable solely for appearing in the news if "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." This individual was the person who made it into the senate chamber. As that substantially contributed to the severity of the security breach, he is a notable part or the event. Actually, he is not the only one, and we do not have articles for everyone else who made it into the senate chamber. He wasn't even the one sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair. ​​Caleb M1 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Worldwide shown shit is worth to be shown and described --84.190.220.194 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8001:4E90:3921:DE17:4219:C8D (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I was curious to know about this weird personality, who has been noted worldwide. Agnerf (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has a lot of media coverage now, after the storming of the Capitol, but he received some media coverage prior to this year: [6], and has been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles as "a regular at pro-Trump rallies who typically wears a wooly fur hat with horns". Natg 19 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People are searching for him the world over and her meets my bar for notability. He is in one of the iconic photos that will be around for many years to come.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having an article about this individual is not an endorsement of his actions. His photo has been shared thousands of times around the world in 2 days. It serves as a visual metaphor for a significant world event. His photo is going to be in History texts, for good or bad. Greenmongoose (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will note article much improved with the two pictures and change in layout. Apparently he is wanted by the FBI - presumably this means he is "on the run?" and his whereabouts are unknown. 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Keeping this page is not an endorsement of the actions, or a promotion of the ideology, of this individual. His photo is now iconic to depict the storm onto the Capitol and did the tour of the world. He is also associated to conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is probably one of the first places where to go to get information about this personage and what he represents. However, if any bad usage of this page, or unexpected abuses, would occur, it would then be relevant to delete this page. As long as it remains factual, true, correct, properly documented in a traceable way and informative, is it a problem? Nevertheless, an important point to also keep in mind: this page cannot serve for spreading disinformation, fake news, or inciting violence. It cannot also serve to glorify violence or conspiracy theories. Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This page should not be misappropriate to celebrate criminal acts and their authors, but it is important to also factually document how US democracy was attacked on January 6th 2021. This seen from a non US perspective. Shinkolobwe (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: [Removed per WP:BLP] but there's sufficient coverage here to meet GNG. BLP1E does not apply as there is sufficient coverage of multiple of Angeli's actions. It doesn't matter if reliable source coverage is about something as important as winning a Nobel prize or as trivial as dropping a crisp packet on the floor; coverage is our criterion [removed per WP:BLP]. — Bilorv (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out he is notable enough that there are 4 articles on him on the non English language Wikipedia 's, Spanish, Turkish, Swedish and Dutch. None of those are up for deletion. I would think it particularly strange that countries outside the US would think an American at an American event is notable and worthy of a page, but bizarrely, America itself deleted his article. At this stage, we don't want to force our English speaking wikipedia users to go off and have to translate a non English article to get information about someone they should be able to read about...that would be ridiculous Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OTHERLANGS for more specific details, but each project has own polices and guidelines established by its own community. What those projects decide to do doesn't affect English Wikipedia any more than what English Wikipedia decides to do affects them. Moreover, from Talk:Jake Angeli#Dutch version, it appears that at least least one of the versions you refer to above is basically a translation of the English Wikipedia article, That's OK to do per WP:TRANSLATEUS from a licensing standpoint, but arguing that such a thing is a reason for notability is like trying to argue WP:CIRCULAR with respect to notability. If there are are reliable sources cited in these other Wikipedia articles that help establish notability, then they can be used (even if they're not in English), but that's about the only value these non-English Wikipedia articles have when it comes to WP:BIO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also ask you to have a look at aspects of WP:OTHERLANGS Yes - other wiki *may* have other criteria for inclusion for a notable subject, but there is nothing as far as I can see, that differentiates those pages for notability than this one. If anything, he should be *more* notable for a US wiki, than for Portugeuse or Turkish wiki.Also, and I quote, at the core of it "A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English" in this case the article is now covered in *7* different wiki non-English wikis. Yesterday it was only 4. So obviously wiki's all over the world have decided this person is notable, but...the English Language wiki does not? It is common to look at other wiki's and the quality of the RS to decide if an article is notable, I have worked on a lot of AFDs over many years, and I can't recall ever seeing where a US subject had 7 non English wikis, but no English wiki article of its own. As for your direct translation argument IMHO it doesn't hold - one or two of them may be direct copies, but looking at them, most of them are not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just two things in response. (1) English Wikipedia isn’t US wiki and trying to say as much will eventually lead to arguments about WP:GLOBAL. (2) I didn’t say he wasn’t notable; I posted that simply being written about on other Wikipedia’s doesn’t make him automatically notable. If he meets WP:BIO, then it doesn’t matter how many other Wikipedia’s have articles about him. If the consensus is to keep this article, then it will be kept regardless of what happens to the articles on those other language Wikipedias. If there are new sources in those other articles which help establish his notability, then they can be added to the English Wikipedia article. If, however, those articles are basically written based upon the sources cited in this article, then you’re back to a WP:CIRCULAR or WP:MIRROR type of argument. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, English language wikipedia is obviously not a US specific Wikipedia, but from my experience, it's used in the majority by American and written mainly by US wikipedians, and it's the defacto Wikipedia for the US citizens (and given the subject matterm its more likely US editors will be on here with opinions, than South Africans or English). We may yet see a debate about WP:GLOBAL and this article. I wasn't saying you said he wasn't notable, but glad to hear you think he is, simply that that would be the argument for removing the article. Normally you would look at foreign wiki's for WP:RS, but I would do moreso do that where RS is lacking and the article is a foreign subject and there wasn't much in English. There is plenty of RS here, and more in English that isn't even being used. It's possible, but at this stage of the AFD, I'm not sure adding foreign language articles will make much difference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable only for one event, so he doesn't merit an entire standalone article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ONEEVENT may not apply here, as he has been interviewed before in the media, I believe last year, well before it occurred, has a history of activity, and so arguably he has had some profile outside this event. Apparently(?) has organised other events? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage is everywhere. Whoever said above that the toothpaste is out of the tube summed it up nicely. Possibly (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Herbfur's argument. The subject can be relegated to a small section of another article until that time, if ever, that he is known for more than one event, which is unlikely considering he will probably go to Federal prison, but I digress. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough about Angeli to support an article at this time; this may change, but none of us are precognitive. Deleted material can be restored if need be; delete for now. DS (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrophobe. Coverage in reliable sources clearly meets WP:GNG. Coverage of his role in the storming would be enough by itself to make WP:BLP1E inapplicable because of the volume and prominence of the coverage. The coverage from previous Trump events before only adds to his notability. The insidiousness of his beliefs is not a bar to having a Wikipedia entry, and in any case the public is better served by having a fair and accurate article about him than not having one. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Known for photos. During the storming. Not notable on the national or even regional stage except for his funny/weird/singular costume at this insurrection/attempted coup. Worthy perhaps of a section or subsection at the main article (maybe a "Known participants" section, along with those who have been charged like that WV state legislator) but not an entire article. If people come looking to WP for information about Angeli then they will find it at the main article through a redirect. Shearonink (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/delete/redirect There's already an article on the riot and Qanon, which is all the guy is known for, and he isn't even a leader of either. The subject probably doesn't warrant even it's own heading in those articles, let alone a separate article.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the article itself, Angeli is known for more than WP:ONEEVENT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant news coverage, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, etc. Meets norability guidelines.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability guidelines, due to (a) instant worldwide notoriety per recent news coverage, and (b) that he was already known for more than this WP:ONEEVENT. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I take OP's point, I think recent media attention has led to him being more notable. — Czello 12:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While WP:ONEEVENT would normally be a concern, the number of different aspects covered in multiple RS sway this topic to being properly notable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of sources to meet notability and arguably the 'face' of the storming, with significant coverage outside the event that some readers will be interested in, regardless of WP:GREATWRONGS arguments on either side. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage is significant, international. --Deansfa (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now meets GNG and should be kept, IOW some people should reevaluate their !votes above and change them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While he gained notoriety because of one event, there's a sustained history prior to that event to write about. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a nobody, transiently of interest .... to the FBI, not Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These arguments would have merit if he weren't known prior to the storming, but he was. People also seem to miss the part of WP:ONEEVENT that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's received substantial coverage, probably moreso than any other rioter there (even the pipe bomber). --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E, then Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Which is what we should do with every other individual who has no notability except for their participation in that event. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is absolutely a notable individual, with enormous coverage in sources. And according to CNN [7], has told the FBI he came to Washington earlier this week “as a part of a group effort, with other ‘patriots’ from Arizona, at the request of the President that all ‘patriots’ come to DC on January 6, 2021,” "His voluntary disclosure to the FBI is the strongest wording in court filings yet indicating coordination between followers of the President that led to the violent and destructive overrun of the Capitol". That alone justifies notability. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I understand that the iconic photo of the subject has had significant coverage provided by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. However, the coverage is focused not on an 3-D individual but on iconic photos of the particular costume and makeup worn for a persona for several hours on a specific day. We don't need to know about this subject's early life or provide a platform for their statements because of what he chose to wear that day. "What is a "large role" in this event? How do we delimit the "event"? Is it just including several hours on Wednesday in which hundreds of participants were videotaping and taking photos providing limitless media fodder? How many individuals in these images and video clips should have articles of their own which included full biographical details like their early life? I think we should hold off on creating individual articles simply because of wide media coverage which in some cases, such as this, has focused on ridiculing the individual because of their comedic costumes or ludicrous statements etc. which through time, will be a source of embarrassment to the individuals and to Wikipedia. I also have concerns that this article would provide an unwitting platform for propagating conspiracy theories and would give these individuals unmerited heroic status. An iconic photo should not result in a biography of the individual if the subject is simply being ridiculed.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oceanflynn. Mgasparin (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Few days later, he's being all over social media. I do not support him or his views but he is a public figure right now, non-american people would even recognize him. As long the entry is neutral and not trying to push any political agendas I do not see any issue in keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunedits (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for relevant in unforgettable scenes. At least so important as a Pokemon character. -- Iape (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His photo is on the front page of the New York Times, linked to this article. Possibly (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Half wish we could keep this, b/c he was definitely the best dressed rioter/insurrectionist. That said, seems to be a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E, then Redirect and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per MelanieN. Plenty of Karens and Kens and conspiracy people end up in national press coverage for stupid and terrible things, but they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrophobe above.   // Timothy :: talk  00:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant coverage now for my mind. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect - per WP:BLP1E. He's notable only for one event (see references) and his role was not substantial (not even mentioned only a sentence in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). Can always be restored later if necessary. Zach (Talk) 00:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being - his significance may grow in the ensuing weeks especially once he goes to trial. When the verdict is delivered I believe is the better time to consider deletion. - kosboot (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge this person is clearly notable (or at least now he is). Notable for something horrible and strange but still, I don't see how anyone could consider this non-notable when he was talked about from every direction, including now scholarly sources. He can be considered a single notable of sort. That being that he only became notable for a a single act and without it he isn't, however he is currently now notable after the riots in the capital. Being notable for a single act certainly isn't a reason for deletion. Des Vallee (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show us a few of those scholarly sources? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE All three rise above BLPIE, and articles for the other two seem inevitable.: Brian Sicknick is a redirect to the "Storming" article. There was a short-lived article about Ashli Babbitt; it was redirected to the "storming" article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt. That's what should happen to this one also. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, where shall we discuss Angeli's involvement in three prior protests, including a climate change one, and interviews with him and his mother? Those would be WP:COATRACK in the Capitol article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement in prior protests could be mentioned in a sentence in the article. Interviews with him and mother: nowhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Checking the article, I see that Ashli Babbitt has a paragraph and Brian Sicknick has a paragraph. Angeli is not as important as they are, but we could give him a sentence or two about his prior activities. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the number of people who have even posted on this delete thread in the past 4 days is already evidence that the person is notable. Wiki's policy is that if someone is notable at one time, then he is notable always, even if we never hear about him again after this. Reesorville (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing to do with US, just a European historian, but I can't understand how you pretend to delete this article on a character of an event of historic importance. Marx said 'history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as a farce'. You do have a 'neo-fascist leader', Mr. Trump, who fretting about a possible loss of elections, tried from power to burn the Parlament of his nation, as Mr. Hitler burned the Reichtag, to make a coup d'etat. but as this is a farce, 80 years latter, according to generational cycles of history, a few of us, historians have been studying for decades in books and webs, it was of course a farce. Mr. Trump could not use the assault to declare martial law and will soon be removed. But the process, part of a push towards an age of violence and extreme capitalist inequality, continues - to erase information on that process in which history repeats its cycles is obviously an act of censorship, regardless on your opinion on the individuals - for that matter erase mr. Trump, Mr. Hitler and invent History, something obviously many media systems do in the present age, 'history rhyme with a different verse' Twain This man is simply the 'Iconic image' of the event, which 7 billion people remember for good or for bad. So he has won his place in History, as absurd as it might seem to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.104.181 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Passes WP:GNG. In addition, the article has already received over 370.000 views, and I don't think it makes sense to delete a neutral and, above all, such a popular article. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable individual; mention in article about Capitol storming, but not sufficiently noteworthy for a separate article. Susan Davis (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too soon to see importance of bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutthegirls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject is a not-notable rally attendee and not an organizer or even a speaker. The subject was previously a non-notable actor. Coverage of the subject is limited with no wide coverage as an individual. This is a case of WP:ONEEVENT and it sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual; and giving notoriety via Wikipedia could be seen as encouraging criminal acts. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not Wikipedia's concern — please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. WP:1E WP:CRIME etc. Somethings pass the WP:GNG but we have policies against giving them articies. His "notability" should be put in context of how he "earned" it. - Scarpy (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of third party coverage of the subject from reputable, independent sources are available[9][10][11]. One doesn't need to agree with the perspectives of the subject in order to verify their notability. SFB 02:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete By the letter of wikipedia's rules, he likely meets WP:N but that is mostly an artifact of being an eccentric and photogenic character in the midst of an extraordinary event. Toss in a little of Wikipedia sets aside WP:NOTTHENEWS and WP:TOOSOON the moment anything viral happens and you get a minor character receiving outsized attention. The reality is this article should be created six months from now but instead its likely we will have to settle for reevaluating in six months from now when his role is clearer, the dust has settled and editors can look at secondary sources instead of heat of the moment primary news articles Slywriter (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited simply because someone happened to don a colorful costume at a protest. If Babbit and Sicknick don't qualify to receive pages then it only stands to reason that Angeli shouldn't either. 0x004d (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is increasingly becoming more notable everyday thus standalone article is justified. Santosh L (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am definitely no fan of this guy but the the sources in the article prove notability. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — lots of coverage.--Falkmart (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: several articles on the Argentine media, and his photo is being used all over the place. Neo139 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BLP1E. Probably WP:SALT KidAd talk 00:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:BLP1E. Stop giving more attention to cosplaytriots. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- for people that are quoting WP:BLP1E - arguably, it doesn't apply for him, because for it to be used to negate an article, it needs to apply ALL of the three criteria:
    • "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - As has been mentioned, he has appeared in the media previously, and been interviewed for his long history of activity.
    • "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - This may apply, hard to be certain considering his current circumstance.
    • "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" - considering he was seen standing at the speakers podium, and seemed to be the centre of attention and was used as the main person personifying the protestors, and has been captured by media all around the world, its pretty clear to say this doesn't apply. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And arguably it does. The limited "pre-storming coverage" that does exist seems to be pretty trivial: captions on photographs and a few sentences about him in an article which interviewed many protesters. Those WP:RS seem to be discussing him because the movements are notable, not because he is. He does not seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for this reason. There does not appear to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of him over an extended period of time. There seems to be trivial "pre-storming coverage" and extensive coverage based on the WP:ONEEVENT (ie. the storming). As others have said, he does not even seem to have played a significant role in the storming. There is no evidence that he organized it, just that he attended, and happened to be wearing a particularly colourful and eyecatching costume.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be checking a free source, but if you check the Factiva News database, its not just the odd line or his photo here or there - he appeared in 20 articles, before this event, and was regularly asked his opinion on the election. In a range of different titles, including international media. I agree there are no features on him specifically, but that's not a specific requirement under WP:BLP1E. He has been interviewed repeatedly at events, so he does have a media profile before this event, amongst other things referred to as "Jake Angeli, a voice actor who was much photographed at the Phoenix demonstrations for his horned warrior attire" and "Jake Angeli, a well-known QAnon supporter in Arizona," " 32-year-old Jake Angeli, a familiar face at pro-Trump rallies and a purported QAnon conspiracy theorist sometimes referred to as the “QAnon Shaman" "Even Arizona’s “Q Shaman,” who dresses in animal pelts and promotes QAnon, is here". 20 articles before this event, as well as the media indicating him as a known figure at these events, IMHO, definitely pushes him over the line for WP:ONEEVENT to not apply. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are random man in the crowd type quotes. All those put together would never justify an article on anyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Random man in the crowd"... you didn't read my quotes from the articles at all, did you???? What are the odds a "random man" is interviewed 20 times???? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Draft: Angeli has become, for better or worse, a historical figure. He is symbolic to a lot of people of the terrorist attack on the Capitol. And since he will likely be sentenced and end up with criminal details on his page too, I would argue it's a necessity. Especially since many people are likely seeking it these next few weeks, I would say to Keep, but otherwise I would recommend moving to a Draft for later. (I am much more a proponent of putting things back in Draft than I am of just deleting.) PickleG13 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article appears to have been removed from google search results. Searching "Jake Angeli wikipedia" does not link to the article, suggesting it has been completely scrubbed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Function of AfD. Pages are flagged and temporarily removed from search engines and other scrapes until the article status is resolved. Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepStrong Delete: If this is not kept, there must be a very strong valid reason for deletion other than "deleted because just a protestor". The reason is because this implies that BLP articles of D or C class actors must also be deleted because they are not well known, even if there are numerous sources from reliable places that talk about them.
Just because media interviews hundreds of people, is a reason that can only be impled for one instance of an interview or max three. If a person is interviewed numerous amount of time, that means they must be notable. It would sound dumb, and a waste of time and money, for news outlets to interview the same exact person repeatedly for no reason.
It also is seen that this person has been interviewed multiple times, each of which for different reasons or events that may at most be weakly connected to each other. The claim that one commentator in this AFD that "this is an attack article" to show that there are a "growing number of contemporary people", is also invalid. There are many articles on rapists, murderers, rippers, and scammers, but that does not imply that they are attack articles that try to give a motion about the increase in the number of these crimes.
My reason for changing to Strong Delete is stated in my reply bellow to User:Johnpacklambert's reply to this vote of mine. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you think the analogy to murderers and even more repugnant crimes is at all relevant shows that for some this is an attack article. There is no evidence that Mr. Angeli's actions directly contributed to the death of a policeman opposing his side, and to make the death of a co-beligerant his fault ignores everything. Most murderers are not notable, and has been explained above Mr. Angeli totally and completely fails our specific guidelines for criminals so the article cannot be kept on thise grounds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert:@Andise1:@Deathlibrarian:@Capt. Milokan:I have changed my view and now would like to say string delete. The problem here is not just about BLP1E, it mroe than that, its also about the context. If this article is kept, it implies that almost every major protestor and rioter, notable for one event and not multiple events that are note worthy events must also have their own article. There are in fact very few articles that are about individuals like Mr.Angeli. Further more if an article like this is kept, it implies that we should also create an article about the police man that was killed. This is the major problem about keeping this article. I do not personally think that such a decision can be kept in the hands of an AfD disscussion, I personally think that this discussion should be moved to Dispute Resolution or Arbitration Commitie. I do not think that an Administrators Noticeboard would be the correct place to continue this discussion as it has probably gone to an iffy point and is looking more disputive, thus does not fall under the decision making of Users with the Administrators privledges. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has a discussion on it's talk page over the issue of wether this discussion should be moved to Dispute Noticeboard or Arbitration Committie. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete or merge/redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. This is a classic WP:BIO1E. He was not notable for other stuff he did prior to the riots, he won’t be notable for long after he goes to jail, and we already have a solid article on the actual event. We’ve already redirected the article on Ashli Babbitt, and if a person who died at the riot isn’t notable enough for a stand alone article, neither is a silly cosplay boy who has now had his 15 minutes of fame. Montanabw(talk) 08:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst I sympathise with those of us calling for deletion and agree with the assertion that Angeli's actions prior to the storming event are not notable (WP:BLP1E), it is apparent that his role in the storming is notable and that he has become something of a figurehead for that event. In this regard he has clearly become something of a public figure and therefore I feel it is in the public interest to keep the article. The number of reliable articles written about him since the event along with high public interest in him is a testament to this. If it is not kept then at the very least he should have his own section in another article related to the storming event.--Discott (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - He is highly notable as one of the best-known icons of the Capitol riot. All major news outlets around the world have been covering him extensively, so this is a clear WP:GNG pass. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only coverage that is anywhere near "extensive" has come from Arizona publications. Yes, there are articles that significantly mention him, and news articles covering the events that are at least on the surface about him, but nothing we have seen comes anywhere close fiting the description of "extenesive". To be fair, extensive is not the requirement for coverage to justify an article, and truly extensive articles can take weeks to build, but words matter, and nothing we have seen here is extensive. I still think any reasonble reading of BLP1E would lead us to not create an article in a case like this, especially not so soon after an event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite that I don't like it, but I must admit, he does have enough coverage to maintain a notbility. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual, except for his part in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, which can be adequately covered in that article. Just because his actions received coverage doesn't mean we need a separate page on him.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E does not apply here because he is known for multiple incidents. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant media coverage for a separate article--Noel baran (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has become the face of the US Capitol riot, and has garnered enough attention to be notable. Eridian314 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BIO1E ed g2s • talk 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The funniest thing I've seen in the past week. Lot of coverage worldwide (not just US). -- Eatcha 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is (in effect) notable for one thing. If he has any lasting notability we can recreate this article, right now it is far too newsy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Close Contrary to the nominator's assertion, this character is highly notable for his shenanigans. I have no objections to revisiting the topic in six or eight months, but for today I would call on admin to bring this epic discussion to a long-overdue conclusion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he seems to have become symbolic to Trumpism and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and is being treated as a sort of celebrity across numerous WP:RS and meets all WP:Notability guidline. Prominent protestors of different eras have their own article, so i see no wrong with this guy getting his, given his feature across numerous prominent WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look, in the end of the day the truth is we don't know wheather the guy will become important or not. What we do know is that there is strong interest in learning about him, and that accurate information MIGHT become important (specially in combating fake news). A general article about the invasion is not the same, and won't attract as much attention about the subject as a specific article. It very well might be the case that he becomes just another guy using his 15 minutes of fame, but we live in a world in which the star from a b-listed reality show became the President. It is too soon to tell if he will actually become important. That said, there is literally nothing to loose by keeping the article. Really, think from a game theory point of view: the best way of maximising our minimum is by keeping the article. Worst case scenario, it will simply be one more unimportant article on the wikipedia. But if we delete the article, and he actually becomes important, we will loose the opportunity of informing people about the guy preciselly in the moment that people are googling him and he is growing in popularity.189.56.111.186 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira[reply]
  • Keep, although I don't wanna see him becoming Person of the Year. --Pakeha (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep # 106. Don't think I've ever seen an AfD with 106 "keep" votes. That alone speaks volumes. In the end, though, the coverage easily surpasses the GNG bar. As for BLP1E, folks are overlooking prong 3 which requires us to evaluate the significance of the event in question. Here, the storming of the Capitol is one of the most significant events in recent history, and Angeli's image will likely appear in history textbooks used by our grandchildren. One might not like what Angeli stands for, but his notability is now undeniable. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and tbc) Wanting to keep the page has nothing to do with endorsing the guy. The question is if he is social and historically relevant, and if wikipedia has the power of providing factual and neutral informations on the guy. There are fake news about he being from ANTIFA, for instance (which is obviosly untrue) and even about he having magical powers. I would say one function of the Wikipedia is to show what is factually accurate and what are just lies. It is not really up to us to make (or not make) the guy important (it's also not like if we had such power), but I guess it is kind of our function to provide the facts to people who want to learn about the guy. Like, just to make it clear, I think the guy is despicable and represents everything I disagree with. But the fact that he makes me feel like that (and I guess, many other folks) is also a show of a sort of importancy. A very bad sort of important, but nevertheless... 189.1.162.180 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira[reply]
    • knowing what is objetivelly and undeniably true is very important, specially in the times we are living in now. Wikipedia does an incredible job in providing straight facts (sometimes, a suprinsingly better job than part of the official media). I dont't think it's right to step down of such a responsability in a case like this 189.1.162.180 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Gabriel Junqueira[reply]
  • Week Keep - I have sympathies with the WP:NOTNEWS arguments, because in all probability like Joe the Plumber this individual will probably fade into obscurity. However it is undeniable that there is enough content here on this article to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG. The argument that he didn't gain attention by organizing speaking at the rally misses the point of why this rally was notable. It wasn't notable because it had eloquent speakers. It was notable for people dressing up in wacky costumes and behaving like asses. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The question is whether the event is notable or whether Angeli is? If he is only notable for that one event, and can be dealt with adequetly in the main article, then there is no need for him to have his own bio. We have explicitly decided against others like Ashli Babbitt (the rioter who was shot and killed) having a stand alone bio. We also seem to have tacitly decided against having an article for Brian Sicknick (the capitol police officer who was killed). His name redirects to the main article. There are many others who are notable only for this one event, who will not be getting their own bios. Is there any compelling argument for why Angeli should have his own article, when we have decided others with a similar profile for the same event should not and can be dealt with in the main article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why I think there is a difference between Angeli and Babbitt: If the bullet had missed Babbitt, the newspapers would probably not have talked about her at all. The coverage of her is the type of routine coverage of someone who has suffered an unusual death. The sources cover Angeli not because something unusual happened to him but because he represents a particular subculture particularly well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a point of interest, if this page was deleted, it would make the unusual situation where as of now, he has 11 articles in non English Wikis... but as an English speaking American, he wouldn't have one in his own. As far as I am aware, I've never seen that happen with an article before, and while its allowed of course (because different lanq wikis can have different criteria) it would be unusual to the point of being bizarre. Not an ideal situation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should see the discussion of this above and WP:OTHERLANGS. The existence of articles in other languages does not confer notability.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but my point is, deleting this article would be *highly unusual*...if not completely unheard of in this context. Darryl Kerrigan can you name an English wiki subject that has been regarded as Notable enough to have 11 or more non english articles about it.... but not one in its actual own English wiki? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is unusual at all. Often articles from English wikipedia are copied to other language wikis. As WP:OTHERLANGS notes, other wikis may have other notability standards. It may also be that they are simply following our lead at this point. If this article is deleted, it may be deleted there as well. I think Marchjuly was correct when he told you above that this is a WP:CIRCULAR or WP:MIRROR type of argument, and not particularly helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Darryl Kerrigan if you say the situation where there are 11 or more non English Wiki articles for an English language subject... but no article on the actual English Wiki itself is not unusual, can you give us an example where that has happenned? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: There are many instances where that has happened. For example, there are articles that even state there is content that should be translated and copied from an article in another language namespace to the english namespace. Some Project or Community talk pages and noticeboards even have discussions over wether an article that exists in one namespace should be tanslated and copied in another namespace. Because you asked for examples, I have some examples of pages that are in other namespaces but not in the english namespace. Sorry if the link texts ends up garbled up due to missing language fonts.  :
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TAns&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Farz.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D9%2584%25D9%2588%25D8%25B3%25D9%2589_%25D9%2588%25D8%25A7%25D9%258A%25D9%2584%25D8%25AF
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Fhi.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E0%25A4%25AC%25E0%25A5%258D%25E0%25A4%25B0%25E0%25A5%2587%25E0%25A4%25A8_%25E0%25A4%25AC%25E0%25A5%2587%25E0%25A4%25A8%25E0%25A5%258D%25E0%25A4%25B8%25E0%25A4%25A8
Translation is the same as the previous.
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FComit%25C3%25A9_fran%25C3%25A7ais_d%2527%25C3%25A9ducation_pour_la_sant%25C3%25A9
english translation : https://www.translatetheweb.com/?ref=TVert&from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Fhy.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D5%2589%25D5%25AB%25D5%25AF%25D5%25AB_(%25D5%25B0%25D5%25A5%25D5%25BC%25D5%25B8%25D6%2582%25D5%25BD%25D5%25BF%25D5%25A1%25D5%25BD%25D5%25A5%25D6%2580%25D5%25AB%25D5%25A1%25D5%25AC)
Hope that helped. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, ok thanks Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold that is interesting. I admit, I haven't seen that before, thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notable per WP:PERP: "For perpetrators... The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Magnolia677 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I read many references to this person I was curious as to who he is. Apparently many people consider him to be a relevant figure for better or for worse. I was thus curious as to who he is so I checked it out on Wikipedia. I do not want others to be deprived of this right. Geofffeldman (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)geofffeldman[reply]
  • Keep He's the poster boy for the Capitol Riot, and I was interested in more info about him. 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is now notable more than ever. People will surely seek information about him. Enjoyer of World — Talk 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is easily one of the most recognizable/memorable and visually notable people who participated in the breach, which is an event of historic significance. I think that we must think about how this event will be portrayed by history books and other programs in one hundred years from now. What will be included? This man's face will be on many a cover about it. He will be forever associated with the event and vice-versa. If future historians may consider him iconic enough to warrant such treatment, then we should play it safe and provide them an introductory resource about him. Anything that may be important to them should be recorded by us. We are engaging in first-hand historical documentation right now; we are righting the history. They deserve the resourced which we can produce. If we must delete this page, though, I would be in favor of having a list of notable participants in this insurrection in either its own page or in the page for this event, and for him and his biography to be included therein. IbexNu (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Not notable – or not nearly enough. Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World-wide media coverage. -- CdaMVvWgS (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was already a face of the movement before the Capitol. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm astonished that some Fascist snowflake who's never achieved anything in his life other than attending protests has such a lengthy article on Wikipedia. I wrote an article about a noted Victorian scientist who published several books on entomology and had that deleted as not notable, someone who's actually achieved good in the world. What is the world coming to when some idiot in a hat is more notable than a respected scientist! Gymnophoria (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gymnophoria: I couldn't help but notice you also created the biography Sarah Maple, a visual artist most noted for creating this poster called "Menstruate With Pride". In other words, notability on Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest; it is determined by the criteria which a consensus of editors have agreed upon at WP:N. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been an determination by consensus that Maple is notable. I have my doubts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm reading up about him, and he's notorious enough considering the political and mediatic scale of the event. WP:NOTABILITY. Israell (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. No matter how big the blip of coverage may be, people who have a blip of coverage for being visible as part of a single event, but have no preexisting notability independent of that event, do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just because they're temporarily newsy. Our job is to write articles about people who pass the ten year test for enduring significance, not just every horned satyr whose name happens to show up in the current news cycle. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1E inapplicable. WP:BLP1E explicitly does not apply per its prong 2 . Prong 2 clearly states that BLP1E only applies if the subject remains and is likely to remain a "low-profile individual." Per WP:LOWPROFILE: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." In this case, Angeli, with his horned fur hat, face paint, and spear, and his regular attendance at high-profile public protests, voluntary granting of interviews, posing for cameras, and other attention-seeking activities, is the antithesis of "low profile". Accordingly, any votes based on BLP1E should be rejected as being contrary to the clear and explicit language of the guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that Jake Angeli passes the standards set by both WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. He personally has received a disproportionately high amount of media attention and coverage in relation to any other individual Capitol rioter. Articles exist which focus less on the insurrection attempt per se and more on him (one example, detailing the meanings behind his tattoos; another example, one of many regarding his relationship with organic food). He, by design, sticks out prominently enough to be a face of not just quite a few recent news stories, but also as an actor in a highly significant political and historic event that challenged and disrupted American democracy. If he does not find another reason to be Wiki-notable, this by itself, in my opinion, is sufficient enough basis. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For better or worse, he has become the face of the rioters. The naysayers (who want this page to be deleted) are hanging on to a nonexistent principle and wishful desire to equate him with all other protesters. The fact of the matter is he is different. It's not our (Wikipedia's) perogetive to deny reality and pretend as if he's just another rioter. His ubiquitous image is the single most memorable personal image of the event. He has merited his own page precisely due to the fact that he has become the face of the riot, which other have not. Also in that respect the article needs to be edited (his notoriety is an issue and a topic in and of itself in the articles that discuss him: the sources talk about that aspect of him repeatedly). However that has not been translated into any part of this article, which it should. --Loginnigol (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIIW, I have requested a formal close here. Participation in this AfD has been quite high.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, he is just a trend in news and we are not sure yet if this person has a historical significance or not, maybe after months or year nobody won't remember him, in the future we can consider if he is notable or not. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he will not be remembered in a few months. He went viral because of the pictures, but he has no relevancy on his own. Virality should never be a criteria to define relevancy--Freddy eduardo (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this can be revisited in a few months if he has been forgotten. I came here after looking for an article about him, and I live in Australia. He has made headlines around the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is this among the longest AfD debates in Wikipedia history? I am impressed by the length of the discussion, as well as the passion and intelligence of the discussion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know this is not a majority vote, but I see that "Keep" is leading by far. About 129 "Keep" votes vs. about 65 "Delete" votes. Strong arguments have been made for the preservation of the Jake Angeli article. "One of the most visible and prominent QAnon supporters among the violent crowd of extremists who stormed the Capitol building has been forced to deny he is antifa after a number of radical conspiracy theorists turned on him following the unprecedented attack."[1] Being so prominent, an article is understandably justified. Israell (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/qshaman-washington-antifa-protest-qanon-1559599
@Israell:@Capt. Milokan:@Jack Upland:If it is not a majority vote, then the number of Keep votes really do not imply anything. What really matters is the value of explanations behind those votes. For example, those Keep votes that claim he might become more famous as he probably would be found in more protests or riots, is not a valid Wikipedia reason. That reason would basically fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Furthermore, some of the people who are saying Keep have in their reason saying "just because there is so many keep votes. " That is not a valid reason, and it also is not a valid reason because of WP:PNSD. It is clearly seen that this article should be deleted because, of it being about a person who only was famous for just a one time even. I have even proven above, that having multiple BLP articles in other namespaces do not imply anything or any reasoning what so ever. However, I would like to provide more further proof that it really does not matter if someone has multiple BLP articles in different Wikipedia language namespaces, but not in the Wikipedia English namespace. For this proof I will be using Breanne Benson's Wikidata page as the proof, it shows more than 11 language articles on her.
Do not get fooled over the fact it lists "English" as one of the article languages, that infact is a redirect, while the other articles are actual articles. There have been two AfD discussions on the English Wikipedia over Breanne Benson's article that ended with the decision of delete and redirect to Penthouse Pets. In fact the discussion, although is more alighned with WP:PORNBIO, at the AfD's were actually similar to that of the discussion we are having here. She was nominated and won only once for an award, Jake was only known because of this one time incident. Protestors need to be seen more promently and not just a one time event to have an article on them, WP:PORNBIO requires porn stars to have been nominated and awarded multiple times to have an article on them.
The only reason why this AfD is so long is because there are probably supporters that align with the Jake Angeli, and are trying to do what ever they can to keep this article. Majority of the Delete and Strong Delete voters have much more valid reasons compared to those who have voted Keep. In my opinion, this AfD is probably going to close either as a Delete, or like in the Breanne Benson article's case, as a Delete and Redirect to the Captiol Hill Riots of 2021. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to go down that line of argument, you could obviously also say many of the delete votes are also from people who align against the protests and against Trumps supporters. There are plenty of active people online against the storming of the Capitol, there's no reason why they wouldn't be here voting as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian:I did not say many or quantify an amount, I only said there are people who support him and wan tto keep this article. It has also been notified to us that there is off-wiki canvasing that is occuring related to the AfD. Look at User:Darryl Kerrigan's notice bellow. It actually shows a post where one even states "should we save this person's article?" This shows that there is a possibility that there are supporters of the article subject that are trying to save this article from a delete. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl Kerrigan: It doesn't matter how many, the important fact is there are going to be people from both sides voting here for polticial reasons - there's no way of proving it, so arguing is just conjecture. Angeli had left his facebook up, and it was swarmed be people attacking him, talking about him going to jail, so there are plenty of anti Trump people online. Just arguing one has an affect on voting without the other doesn't make sense, and to talk about the affect is conjecture, because it can't be proven either way. Also I agree with Elliot321, your wording seems to be writing off the keep camp as political supporters, which is pretty unfair without proof. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant to ping Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold. I haven't yet said anything about the stealth canvassing besides simply providing a link to it so others were aware. That said, I do mostly agree with ACE. There may be canvassing happening on the 'delete' side too, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. What we have seen is some folks on 4chan trying to "save" the article. I think the post there speaks for itself: "the wikipedia page for Jake Angeli, the shaman from the capital, is under talks of deletion. Can we save it?".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is a very unfair and extreme characterization of the keep !voters here. The reasons I support keeping this artile are completely unrelated to my own politics. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read through the actual comments the most blantantly anti-Trump comments and the ones most contemtuous of anyone who in any way supported the current President of the United States come from those arguing to keep this article. They want to keep this article for generally political reasons to use it as an attack article on their political opponents. A view that totally ignores what we have generally done with articles on people notable for only one incident like Nikolas Cruz, or notable largely in relation to a specific criminal act like Brian David Mitchell. There is no reason to limit the amount said on Chansley in the article on the capitol storming, but Chansley is only notable in the context of that incident, and so there is no reason for a seperate article on him. We have lots of other names that lead to redirects to articles on an incident, and in many cases these are incidents that had one person carry them out, not an incoherent mob.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article has a lot of non English wiki articles is *generally* an indicator that the person is notable. (Some unknown user, not catched by auto signature bot).
It may not always be (as in Breanne Benson's case), but in most cases it should be. Citing Breanne Benson just indicates that it doesn't happen in all cases... but so far, that's the only example I have seen. Also, they are very different article subjects. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge if this only appeared this year, add it to the article about the incident, or possibly make a separate article "people involved in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol" combining this any any other "characters" that show up. Irtapil (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • * I tried to put information there early on. The editors there weren't keen, and wanted the information put here instead. So it would appear this page at least serves a purpose in keeping this information off there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I already commented earlier in favor of deletion, however I would like to further underscore the point, as I just noticed that while his prominence beyond any other participant appears based primarily on his efforts to appear visually distinctive; Ashli Babbitt, who actually perished by a Capitol Police bullet at the seige, is apparently not considered notable enough to have her own article, and her name simply redirects to the main article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Is someone whose primary distinction appears to be frequently wearing a unique costume really more notable than the first American citizen to be (factually, and without intending to comment otherwise on the circumstances surrounding it) killed by a federal officer during the seige? This doesn't seem right to me. SteubenGlass (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a noted difference between Babbit and Angeli for two reasons (1) Angeli has a more prominent profile, as he was walking around, speaking to the media, sitting in the speakers chair, and featured prominently as a central figure in the event in international media photographs - Babbit was not (2) Angeli has a media profile *before* this event - he has been interviewed in at least 20 articles before the storming of the capital, he is known particularly in his home state for his role in protests, and was even featured in international media for his prominent roles in protests before this. Babbit has no media coverage before this, so arguably WP:ONEEVENT applies to her so she is not notable, but *not* to him. Both these reasons would appear to fail him for the three points criteria of WP:BLP1E, thus making it inapplicable here as a reason for AFD. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ashli Babbitt AfD was closed rather faster than usual, which I feel was unfortunate. This article, which should be an unambiguous keep per WP:GNG and per consensus, is running well into its seventh day. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Only four comments above, someone outlines how the subject fails all the BLP1E criteria, so it's far from "textbook". The other reasoning in this !vote is full of judgment of the subject, which is invalid. Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a comparison with the biographical articles on the heroes, survivors and victims of the WTC attack on 9-11 would be useful here.

Many contributors making the IMO questionable claim that Angeli is a BLP1E individual are overlooking that BLP1E is not an outright bar to BLP1E individuals meriting a standalone article. It is a judgment call. Individuals who played a significant role in a prominent event may merit a standalone article.

I joined the wikipedia in late 2004, and among the articles I started were two on two exceptional survivors of the WTC attack on 9-11, Stanley Praimnath and Brian Clark (September 11 attacks). I then learned there had been an extensive discussion that concluded merely being a hero, survivor or victim of the WTC attack on 9-11 was insufficient to merit a standalone article. Apparently that discussion triggered a mass deletion of a large number of stubs on nice but no-notable people.

My two guys were exceptional, measured up to GNG, and ended up being surviving AFD. Nevertheless, you will find people who try to swat articles on people connected with 911, no matter how well they measure up to GNG.

Since then I have started other articles on 911 people, including Orio Palmer, Pablo Ortiz, and Frank De Martini. Purists challenged the Orio Palmer article, as well.

I suggest that the kind of absolute bar those calling for a blanket dismissal of all 2021-01-06 people, based on BLP1E is both very unhelpful, and counterpolicy. Every hero, survivor or victim of 9-11, without regard to GNG, would be something like 20,000 people. However, previously non-notable 911 people, who subsequently measured up to GNG? That is maybe 100, maybe 200 people. Those good articles are good additions to the wikipedia.

How many insurgents broke into the US Capitol? How many previously non-notable Capitol staffers had something to say about the insurrection? Thousands.

But no one is suggesting we have articles on every single insurgent, or even every single insurgent captured on cell phone and surveillance video. If we restrict standalone articles to those who measure up to GNG - like Angeli - that would be mere dozens. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will {{ping}} everyone who called for deletion, based on BLP1E... @Future Perfect at Sunrise, KidAd, Herbfur, MelanieN, NickCT, Missvain, Zacharie Grossen, Praxidicae, Surv1v4l1st, Gnangarra, Bearcat, Ibrahim.ID, François Robere, Themoother, ValarianB, and Reywas92:... Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I’m open to reconsider but for now, I maintain my delete vote. I think your comparison is a very valid one and I thank you for bringing it up. But the issue is that I’m not sure if Angeli played a significant enough role in the storming of the Capitol. If I’m understanding correctly, the people from 9/11 had significant stories about surviving/saving people which merited their inclusion? I’m not really sure if Angeli was notably connected to the event in a similar way. If he played a big role in orchestrating it, or executing it, or maybe saving people (probably not), and there’s coverage of that by reliable sources, then I’d change my vote to keep and improve. But otherwise, I maintain my delete vote with openness to reconsider. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess, I wasn't pinged because I said WP:ONEEVENT as opposed to WP:BLP1E (the same thing). In any event, I tend to agree with Herbfur. I don't think Angeli played a significant role in the storming. I also expect in the coming months as those who did more than simply trespass continue to appear in court to face charges related to conspiracy, bomb making, domesitc terrorism etc. (ie did play a more significant role), Angeli's role may look much more insignificant in hindsight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: I too was not pinged. I too am going to keep my stance on Delete. I do not see how Jack has made a big contribution to the storming of the capitol or the riots. If any reliable source of him doing such a contribution was referenced in the article, I do not think this AfD would have gone this long. Furthermore we have two comparisons of which both are BLP related (my comparison some comments above, and yours that relate to victims in 9/11), however the two are not similar in anyway to what Jake does. The other major important note being is that my one can be considered more famous in terms of online media fame but does not have an article due to failing the rules of it's projects GNG, while the two 9/11 survivours who got media presence via news papers and how they helped people were the reason why those two still have articles on them. This AfD and Jake's article is more in line with Breanne Benson reasoning, he did not do much to affect or influence his area of expertice (which is rioting and the storming of the captiol this month). Thus even if WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, he fails GNG because he did not have much of an influence in the event that took place. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything that was said above. Geo Swan is right that this is a judgement call, but one based on criteria that this particular subject does not satisfy. As far as media reports go, the subject's participation in these events consists of little more than dressing like a drunk sports fan, joining a mob, then asking for organic meals in jail. I don't see how this is of enough encyclopaedic value to merit its own article. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy has not played a significant role in the Jan 6 event nor in any other previous event. He has been picked up by the media because of his appearance, not because of his actions. If the media fishes for clicks based on appearance (face paint, tattoos etc.) this does not automatically qualify the guy for notability. What is he notable for other than standing out in a crowd? If a subjective call has to be made it should be a Delete based on not wanting to set a precedent that being a weirdo makes one notable. Notability is about content and substance. Apperance is devoid of both of these qualities. Themoother (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has the nominator made any research on this person? He is clearly notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - other editors have argued that the subject is previously notable but almost every single reference in the article was written on or after 6 January 2021 and relates to his participation in the insurrection. If there are references establishing his notability prior to the riot, I'd change my vote to keep. If anyone has these references, please provide them because I'd love to see them. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herbfur, thanks for responding to my earlier ping, I'll leave a comment under it.
    • No offense, but I think your comment incorporates what I regard as a serious and unfortunately common lapse from our deletion policy. Specifically those nominating an article for deletion, or weighing in on an AFD are supposed to base state their opinions on the notability of THE TOPIC. It is pretty common to see AFD based on weaknesses of the current state of the article, not on the notability of the article's topic. Your comment notes "almost every single reference in the article" is dated after the attempt to seize the Capitol building. WP:BEFORE explicitly lays out that nominators are under a strong obligation to conduct their own meaningful web search, prior to starting an AFD. If, after doing that web search, they conclude that while the current state of the article is weak, the underlying topic is notable they are supposed to take steps to improve the article, not delete it.

      I think everyone else considering weighing in in an AFD should conduct a meaningful web search first, so they can reach their own informed conclusion on the notability of the underlying topic.

I agree with Herbfur here.
    • With regard to BLP1E, shouldn't even one good article from prior to the insurrection be enough to swat BLP1E?
    • One of Deathlibrarian's comment above goes into some detail about the extensive coverage of Angeli by Arizona Central in 2020. I know this discussion is long, but the info you looked for was already in here. I too found references to prior to the attempted seizure.
    • I wrote above about the difficulty in finding early information about someone who has just been part of a very highly covered recent event. I wrote about really having this phenomenon spelled out when I made these edits to the article on Chesley_Sullenberger. We didn't have an article about him, prior to his remarkable emergency landing on the Hudson River. About a dozen good faith contributors were convinced he was a non-notable nobody, who would be forgotten in a week or two. I guessed that he had previous notability factors and might have been (barely) notable, 'PRIOR to the landing. The result of my efforts to test that was just a stub, but it established he was not a BLP1E. Well, because of how google handles breaking news, and due to how every single reporter around the world wanted to write their own article about him, even if it rehashed the same breaking news as every other article, I had to go through hundreds of google hits to find the half dozen references to the earlier notability factors. It took me almost two hours.
    • For guys like Sullenberger, in January 2009, or Angeli, in January 2021, finding those earlier references is very hard work.
    • No offence, but I think the people who did a very cursory search, and didn't find any references to earlier RS, in the first screenful of google results, gave up too early. This firehose phenomenon I described is woefully underrecognized. Geo Swan (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The government's brief in support of detention for Chansley's detention hearing details how Chansley inspired and incited other participants: "While Officer Robishaw was attempting to quell the crowd, Chansley was using his bullhorn to incite it. Because the Capitol building is cavernous, the sound of Chansley's voice over the bullhorn carried to different areas of the building." — Toughpigs (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very much a WP:1E, handwaving above notwithstanding. (An event like a crime and the repercussions of it such as arrest and prosecution and TV interviews about it, are all one even from WP's standpoint). Merge the summarized gist into a section on the event and those arrested and charged in relation to it. I guess technically this would be a blank-and-redirect-to-section result, unless the summary material isn't merged from this article is is instead written anew.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope sorry there pardner, he fails WP:1E it ain't applicable - his media coverge/media profile predates capitol hill storming, so he's not just known for one event, but he has been interviewed and mentioned in (according to Factiva) 20 articles before the date of capital hill, for various other things he was involved in, particulalry in his home state. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardner, I suggest you provide those "pre-storming sources" you claim amount to significant coverage. The only one referenced in the article is simply a caption of a photo (among many others). The others I have seen are brief "man in a crowd" interviews (which no one has chosen to add to the article, probably because they are so trivial). The fact that you still haven't provided these magic "20 references" suggests that they don't exist, aren't WP:RS, are trivial or otherwise are not significant coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
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 deleted by User:AmandaNP via WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America

[edit]
Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources used are not adequate to demonstrate notability. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Tagged it as such. Spiderone 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Ávila

[edit]
Javier Ávila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC (the nice citation counts are not for this person). Oh yeah, the whole WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY thing. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the (unproven) assumption that the subject is notable as an author, blocking the editor for imitating a real person, then preventing account creation per COI (contradictory?), then immediately nominating the article for deletion by several routes, strikes me as unfortunate. The 'pedia is trying to generate more diversity in its contents & contributors, yet people who try to write articles to address that (possibly about themselves) face close to insuperable barriers to successful participation. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject may or may not be notable, but they've willfully complicated the article through persistent promotion, then creating multiple socks to evade a block, and denying it when confronted. If notability rests on a razor's edge, the user's behavior is a deciding factor. The barriers are, hopefully, designed to discourage blatant WP:COI editing, not good faith contributions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Benjamin Ingrosso. SNOW close, as redirect to [[Benjamin Ingrosso] Drmies (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

En gång i tiden (Benjamin Ingrosso album)

[edit]
En gång i tiden (Benjamin Ingrosso album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and seems to fail WP:NALBUMS, WP:FUTUREALBUM. lovkal (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but can you explain me what does this mean? If you mean that the page is unsourced, you can check Benjamin Ingrosso's official Instagram and you'll see that the album I'm talking about is completely true and has no fallacies. Thank you so much. Mikezarco (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sutton (host)

[edit]
Ralph Sutton (host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG ZXVZ (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Bhateja

[edit]
Yogesh Bhateja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person seems non-notable and WP:PROMOTIONAL with references that are interview/sponsored type in nature. — Amkgp 💬 18:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 18:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 18:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 18:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. Sandstein 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramonda (character)

[edit]
Ramonda (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial character with no particular coverage. What little attention the character received for the very minor MCU role is not substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some pointless MCU fluff piece with no pertinent commentary and a useless character encyclopedia you've disingenuously cited for the thousandth time. TTN (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points of the SyFy article include the character's backstory, its publication history, the difference in treatment between the comics and the movie – visually and otherwise. The character encyclopedia comes from a respectable and successful education publisher and has a full page for the character, summarising various aspects of the portrayal. Both sources are professional in every sense of the word. They clearly demonstrate that the subject has been noticed and written about and so WP:GNG is passed. The nominator's denial of them is an amateur and personal opinion – blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RUBBISH contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really longwinded way to say that they provide no original commentary whatsoever and are thus useless to the article. Your opinions are blatant contrarianism towards nominators you dislike with zero regards to the actual content of the article, with your provided sources usually being scoffed at by even people who vote to keep the articles. In the case of the Marvel Studios Character Encyclopedia, you are acting like a product clearly marketed towards young children is a meaningful and comprehensive source worth documenting on Wikipedia. The summaries, as can be seen by the preview, are written to be understood by children under ten. You're showing you didn't even look at it, that you've only inserted it here as a means of defending an article for which you have zero investment other than countering someone you don't like. TTN (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly looked at the entry in the Character Encyclopedia and the entry certainly passes WP:SIGCOV. For example, "Her distinctive and intricately designed hats are made with the aid of a 3-D printer." That's a plain fact of interest to all ages. It is a satisfactory source for our purpose and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an "encyclopedia" for eight year olds too young to even have been alive when the franchise launched. That you're still pushing it as a viable source is laughable. You could at least have grabbed a casting article mentioning the 3D printing if that's the best you have, but that's ultimately a trivial mention regardless. TTN (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Educational works are naturally targeted at young people because they do the most learning. Myself, I was happily reading both the Children's Encyclopædia and DC comics when I was eight years old. That was many years ago but my tastes don't seem to have changed much. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and so does not discriminate on grounds of age. The character encyclopedia is written in a reasonably polished and sophisticated style and so is quite valid for this purpose. When it tells us that the subject's hats were made using a 3D printer then this is adequate support for this fact and so there is not a problem. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Singapore (2009 film)

[edit]
Love in Singapore (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. The only reference in the article is dead. Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. Sandstein 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-Man (Marvel Comics)

[edit]
Cat-Man (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial set of characters with no coverage to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Sandstein 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Sun

[edit]
Doctor Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial character with no coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Borg

[edit]
John Borg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD by another user was Footballer with only 1 pro game is not Wikipedia-eligible per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Stark et al

Contested with No evicence of WP:BEFORE, when meeting WP:NFOOTBALL it's better to put it on afd

With regards to WP:GNG, I found this trivial mention, this mention in Bury Times, name check in Lancashire Telegraph and this brief quote in Bolton News. Since all coverage has just been name checks, I would argue that he does not pass GNG.

It was suggested that this person might be the same, however, it does not seem plausible as that John Borg is Maltese. He also looks older than 27 in that picture. It's possible that that John Borg might be notable enough for an article but I'm not certain. Spiderone 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to My World (EP). Sandstein 22:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Earth (Justin Bieber song)

[edit]
Down to Earth (Justin Bieber song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bigger (Justin Bieber song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First Dance (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles do not satisfy WP:NSONGS. The content of these articles is: background (derived from album liner notes) -- composition (derived from album reviews) --> critical reception (derived from album reviews). Chart positions do not warrant notability. Per NSONGS: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. The only criterion that matters is third-party coverage, which these articles all lack. HĐ (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: oops, that’s what I meant. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cadogan, California

[edit]
Cadogan, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V in that the two sources given are not - per 100+ AFD discussions - good enough to establish verifiability on their own. Having a post office for only a year doesn't sound like a real post office. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no actual indication that this place fits notability guidelines. The goal of becoming a gazeteer maybe should have been thought out better before we undertook it without tight controls on what places we would allow. This has lead to articles on places that were never more than one residence in California while we lack articles on places with thosands of residents in Nigeria and Congo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per precedent for other Durham-only articles. There's possibly some hope of verifying the post office name, but in itself that's not notable, and especially not for one that existed so briefly. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three domain stability of a non-conservative system

[edit]
Three domain stability of a non-conservative system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTESSAY. Please, we don't need this going out on the internet. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Menda

[edit]
Manoj Menda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. References are mere mentions and profiles. Google search of him hasn't turned up anything better. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Article has changed significantly since original nomination. Please feel free to renominate (with no minimum time period to be observed) if anyone believes it should still be deleted. Daniel (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Martin (artist)

[edit]
Dick Martin (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no clear indication that he is actually notable. He illustrated the 40th book in the Oz series. I have to admit that I had no idea there were that many books, period. I have not read any, although my 5th grade teacher read "The Wizard of Oz" to us, but because I was assigned to go to the Special education resource room, I missed parts of the book. I missed parts of lots of books she read to us, it was in its own way quite frustrating. I knew there were other books, we mentioned it in my American Heritage class lab session at BYU, although the others lack the direct political analogies that make the first one more culturally impactful. To be fair most people for the last 80 plus years have known "The Wizard of Oz" more as a film than as a book, it is still a work with cultural cachet to this day (as seen by the "Flying Monkey" line in "The Avengers" paired with Steve Rogers responding "I get that", because it is one of the few such references that would have been known to a 20-something year old in the mid-1940s). Illustrators normally only become notable for picture books (for example Theodore Suess Guisel, although he was also the writer so this might be a poor example, but he remains the most famous example), but I suppose there are a few who illustrated books dominated by text who are notable who were not the writers, but it normally is in a truly impactful book or in several. Illustrating the 40th volume does not cut it. Nor does being the president of a fan club, or the editor of a fan oriented magazine. The other issue is this article has stood for over 15 years with no sources, it has had a notification of no sources for almost 12 years. This is one of the most flagrant violations of verrifiability rules I have ever seen. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I get it, Wizard of Oz is a classic and it is super notable, but I think not everything is notable that is connected to it. I have seen so many Oz related articles here, and I'm not convinced if all of them are notable. We are not Ozpedia. Btw, I have only read the first book and I enjoyed it. (I haven't seen the film though.) I don't know if I would enjoy the sequels as well. I don't like it when there are too many sequels about anything. They just seem like a quick cash grab to me. But anyways, Dick Martin is not notable, as everything I have found are just about the book, with his name mentioned as the illustrator. The only site that is actually about him is the webpage of the Oz fanclub, which I wouldn't call a reliable source. So yeah, definitely not notable on his own. Maybe others find something else, but during a Google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have my doubts that the book he illustrated in notable either. This was the 40th book in the series, which was released about 70 years after the first one. Only the first 14 were by Baum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have my doubts about their notability as well. The books by Baum are notable, but I am not sure we need an article on every Oz book. That's why I said "we are not Ozpedia." We don't need an article on everything that is related to Oz. Even if every book is notable, I am still not sure about all of the characters (with the exception of the main characters) and all the related stuff. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? "I am not sure we need an article on every Oz book"? There are many articles *I* personally don't need, but I'd never use that as a point in deletion discussions. It's not about what one or most of us thinks the encyclopedia needs--it's about what is notable and received coverage. Oz books by people other than Baum pass notability if they meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK. So what if one book is the 40th in the series and published 70 years after the first? To say otherwise is to ignore Wikipedia policy. It's that simple. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • '@DiamondRemley39: Okay, I got it. The books themselves are notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oz/ozsect3.html is an entry in the library of congress, which verifies some information listed in the article. I don't see anyone reviewing any of his work though. Dream Focus 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kirkus Reviews: https://static.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/eloise-mcgraw/merry-go-round-in-oz/ (his work not reviewed, though). I don't think the Publishers Weekly website goes back that far, but I can look more into it later, plus SLJ and the rest of the usual suspects. There is more info with citations on Ozmapolitan of Oz article. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep just meets WP:AUTHOR #3. He's got other titles, but none for which I could find much coverage outside of the Oz fandom. I looked for, but did not find, an obit; that might have been helpful. I removed uncited information that wasn't backed up in external links from the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google, though the bare minimum standard of a BEFORE check, is often insufficient for the task of establishing notability of writers and illustrators of the pre-ditigal era; you're going to need to look at paywalled sources to adequately investigate notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer: some of the comments above are akin to WP:IDL and WP:NOEFFORT. If this is looking like a delete, please give me a head's up before deleting the page so I can copy information to one of his books and create a redirect. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    https://oz.fandom.com/wiki/Dick_Martin might be a good place for information about him. Dream Focus 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the impressive work that has happened since nomination: the much-bemoaned lack of sources is no longer an issue, nor is the page filled with cruft. While the version that got AfD'd was definitely crap, we are now looking at a substantially different (and better) article. jp×g 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Al-Gaylani

[edit]
Hashim Al-Gaylani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited, most of the article is not about the subject, but about his ancestors. WP:BEFORE did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax by Drmies. (non-admin closure) Blablubbs|talk 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realjamesh

[edit]
Realjamesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ugh. This article, like it's predecessor is nothing short of a blatant fabrication. Every single source is paid for spam from blackhat SEO sites and in fact, one is a very poorly done photoshop of a legitimate newspaper, which he was not featured in. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 102.64.130.29 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 102.64.130.29 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Slippin, I. Caught U. (2020-12-29). "realjamesh Removes Music from Digital Stores | Here's why". Getmybuzzup. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  2. ^ ForUs, eSports (2021-01-05). "realjamesh hints at playing Survival Minecraft again". ESportsForUs. Archived from the original on 2021-01-05. Retrieved 2021-01-05. A few more episodes were made....realjamesh stopped posting any Minecraft content to his channel
  3. ^ "realjamesh launches 'Verified Handles' service to combat impersonation | The Los Angeles Tribune". Los Angeles Tribune. 2020-11-23. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  4. ^ admin (2020-12-27). "realjamesh – The Man Behind JEM Media". Epi express. Archived from the original on 2020-12-27. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  5. ^ Brown, Richard (2020-12-27). "realjamesh gets hacked on Instagram, account now restored". USA Reformer. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  6. ^ Perkins, Emma (2021-01-05). "Why Did realjamesh Private His Twitter Account?". The New York Age. Archived from the original on 2021-01-05. Retrieved 2021-01-05. If James does have political views and if he uses Twitter for following and most importantly, liking the tweets of controversial political figures, then that would explain why he has hidden both his liked tweets and his following list.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Graham English

[edit]
Maurice Graham English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapash Chatterjee

[edit]
Tapash Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable and non elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Umakant Bhalerao, thanks for reviewing Tapash Chatterjee. I have added more link from Times Of India, The Indian Express so now you can see alot of reliable sources. Now you can check and review the page. But I think this page have much reliable source right now. So I think this page should not be deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroynoplan (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Hello RationalPuff, i don't know whether those news link are spam or promotional. I have got those news link from Google. And I had put those on wikipedia. So the decision is totally on admin, is they will delete this page or they will keo the page on wikipedia. By the way thanks for joining the contest. Jroynoplan (talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Deputy mayor of a suburban city is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article: to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, the article would need to contain a lot more substance about his actual work in the role, and simply jengastacking sixteen references onto a statement that he exists, the end, is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroynoplan (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC) RationalPuff (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add multiple votes which I have strikethrough. RationalPuff (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Alunkal filmography

[edit]
Rajeev Alunkal filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuitable WP:CFORK of a WP:BLP. Information is unsourced, so merge is not possible. Not sure it is suitable for a "filmography" for a songwriter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom this is a CFORK of a BLP. There is not enough sourced material for a merge. The role this person played in these items is unclear. We cannot merge unsourced unclear information into a BLP.   // Timothy :: talk  16:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that lyrics you penned appeared in a film has no relevance to you. This is all the more so because we have films like Scoob and Sing where they use multiple extremely short clips to establish a them, short clips that are short enough to fall under fair use so they do not need either permission from the work creator or to pay any royalties, so whoever penned the lyrics is two stages of removal. This is not even facing up to the normal problem that a film in a movie is some form of a production, and some lyricists create songs that then go through a huge number of different productions, in some cases decades or more after the lyricist dies. A filmmography should be limited to films that in some way involved the person, with maybe a very few exceptions for posthumous amassing of footage projects, but with the removal from the production process one and sometimes two steps inherent in the role of a lyricist, this is not a justified creation. If these were limited to films where Alunkal had created all lyrics, or even if it was limited to works where he intentionally created lyrics with the project in mind it would be one thing, but the sources do not at all indicate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think John Pack Lambert summed it up well. Kolma8 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - louder for the peanut gallery - Wikipedia is not IMdB. Bearian (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naku Pellam Kavali

[edit]
Naku Pellam Kavali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but only found passing mention of the film in the few available sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhamastu

[edit]
Subhamastu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Fire (novel series)

[edit]
Wings of Fire (novel series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Horribly fails WP:GNG. The sources in this article are, well, not too good, most of them are from one site, the publisher of the book, so that's not even a secondary source. The talk page is even worse. It looks like a bunch of ten year olds talking about minute details in the plot. Looking through the talk page, I'm pretty sure that this page will be overrun by fans of the series. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviews are available. The article needs to be shortened, but the series likely passes GNG or book-specific criteria with the coverage I've found in a few minutes. I can't get to work on it now, but I will later. Here's a few minutes' research:

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

The result was soft delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seetapathi Chalo Tirupathi

[edit]
Seetapathi Chalo Tirupathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 06:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala Rao Gari Abbayi

[edit]
Gopala Rao Gari Abbayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevana Ganga

[edit]
Jeevana Ganga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poola Rangadu (1989 film)

[edit]
Poola Rangadu (1989 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navayugam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rana (film)

[edit]
Rana (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aanimuthyam

[edit]
Aanimuthyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that NFILM is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pattabhishekam (1999 film)

[edit]
Pattabhishekam (1999 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Proposed sources remain uncontested. Sandstein 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firewalk (computing)

[edit]
Firewalk (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability tagged for ten years fgnievinski (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it passes GNG. Here's an extremely in-depth explainer that at least looks independent, which seems to have been written entirely about the method, and cites several more descriptions of it. More in-depth and independent-seeming articles in what look like reliable sources, including textbook mentions, are easy enough to find: see for example 1, 2, 3, 4. I even found questions about it as sample questions on IT exams and course answer websites, see here and here, which suggests that it's part of some standard network security curricula. This is further supported by the existence of plenty of tutorials devoted to explaining it, such as here and here. So I don't think there's any trouble putting together a GNG argument. But I'll also admit that computer security jargon is just opaque enough (to me at least) that I'm not completely confident these are all about the same thing, so I would welcome double-checking that all these sources apply. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Sautter

[edit]
Antonia Sautter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP. Only working reference is her own website. The article is promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Birch Hills County helicopter crash

[edit]
2021 Birch Hills County helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Private plane crashes are very common and unless somebody famous is on board, are rarely notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan C. Haerter

[edit]
Jordan C. Haerter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Corporal awarded the Navy Cross is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without strolling into the non-related policy topics, there is a consensus for deletion.

Nominator was not blocked for socking etc, so was a valid !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Geoghegan

[edit]
John Geoghegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD objected for an unexplained reason, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. All sources only give a brief mention of John Geoghegan. Eyebeller 09:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eyebeller 09:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I PRODDed it, not sure how an IP is allowed to dePROD. He fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, only really known for his death in We were Soldiers once and young (book and movie). He is literally the guy in every war movie who shows the picture of his sweetheart and then gets killed. Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can de-PROD. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, only confirmed Users should be allowed to do so. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all notable. Do not get me started on why we have a system that makes it so easy to create articles and so hard to delete them. We have had articles exist with 0 sources for over 15 years, so clearly there is something wrong with our current system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Online

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sabrina Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination): while the new article has some info on what happened since then, there are no further claims to notability, so'salting' the same issues and arguments from the AfD still apply. Looking for better sources only gave me some online stores like Amazon selling the self-published paper versions of this comic. GNews gave no usable results. Fram (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. Cute but not enough there in sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and consider 'salting' the article title to prevent further creation without making a case to an administrator or similar that reliable, detailed sources have been found. In my search I only found one source that might demonstrate notability, a review at Comixtalk. However, both the reliability of this source and whether it is detailed enough to show notability are bouth questionable, so I would want at the least a second reliable, detailed source. Web Cartoonist Choice Awards can't demonstrate notability, as they are not detailed: they do not provide a description of the comic or basic facts beyond the name and author. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above, also, creator was sock of FriendlyTamer. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this could be speedy deleted as a G5 (created by sock of banned user) I guess, but letting the AfD finish would be stronger as it would make clear that the deletion is about the subject, not solely about the creator of the article. Fram (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 CS Pandurii Târgu Jiu season

[edit]
2018–19 CS Pandurii Târgu Jiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD reasoning was Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK; no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG

Removed with reason part of a series. Must be discussed at AfD

In my view, there would need to be some strong justification for this particular season to warrant a stand-alone article and I'm just not seeing that here. Spiderone 09:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Program Supervisor

[edit]
Program Supervisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined WP:PROD. Unreferenced stub from 2006 that hasn't seen any expansion. No evidence this occupation is notable and the article can grow beyond the current WP:DICTDEF. BEFORE doesn't show anything outside expected mentions in passing here and there. Could redirect to Head teacher, perhaps, but the term is also used in contexts outside education ([13]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Dewayne Francisco

[edit]
San Dewayne Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, nothing notable about him or his loss, he is one of 1585 Americans unaccounted for from the Vietnam War. Most information is unreferenced/WP:FRINGE. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-taught classes

[edit]
Peer-taught classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SUBSTUB unreferenced for 15 years since creation and not expanded since. WP:PROD has been declined. I can't find any evidence this term is used beside the colloquial meaning. There are few hits for it in GBooks/GScholar, but there is no evidence this is a defined term connected to an established theory or practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep, even if weakly. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Cevoli

[edit]
Richard L. Cevoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hero? Absolutely. Notable? I'm not seeing it. He did have a post office named after him, and a person under his command won the Medal of Honor, but neither of those establish GNG, and I don't think induction into the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame is sufficient by itself. There are one or two articles in The Providence Journal, but I don't think they're enough to substantiate notability on their own. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2nd highest medal for valor - all properly sourced. IMHO, naming a post office after him is by itself notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The relevant SNG here is WP:SOLDIER #1 - which explicitly has the Navy Cross mentioned as the example of the "second-level" award that being awarded multiple times can be considered to confer notability. Falling back on GNG, I think there's barely enough here, between the Navy Cross and the news around his postal-service memorial - adding a bit on his winning the Navy Cross (a Providence Journal article from 1945, "Lt. Richard Cevoli Wins Navy Cross", may be able to be tracked down) would help. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER (one award of the Navy Cross doesn't meet #1) and WP:GNG.Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll be honest, this is probably more akin to 'Weak Keep' based on my limited knowledge of Wikipedia. My voice however should not be considered very heavily since I've done some minor work on the page and because I did the pages for Cecil Harris and VF-18. Besides The Providence Journal, Cevoli's name appeared in a number of papers nationwide as a result of Brown/Hudner, and with his death in 1955 appeared locally and in Florida. His name was read into the congressional record, he in a state aviation hall of fame, has a post office named after him, appears in a few books, etc. I know that's not strong relative to some other figures, but at the same time, it seems strange (and somewhat arbitrary to me) that someone who may be less noteworthy in a number of categories (book and newspaper mentions for example) but who has won two Navy Crosses qualifies for a page, while someone like Cevoli may not. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant between the Navy Cross and other mentioning... Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Roland Burke

[edit]
John Roland Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkajan Wanwisa

[edit]
Jakkajan Wanwisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP that has been moved to draft space twice and moved back twice without following procedure. This has been deleted from Thai Wikipedia on multiple occasions as well. A search comes up with a thinly-veiled advert for cosmetic surgery, this piece which looks like it might be sponsored in some way and I have no idea what this is meant to be about. Spiderone 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone is able to find Thai sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search under her Thai name จั๊กจั่น วันวิสา leads to some more results but they are clearly self-created social media posts and a few promotional announcements. I wonder if shysters are using her image against her will in sleazy ads... if so that is unfortunate but they don't serve as reliable sources here either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article creator has not been notified of the AfD, due to a previous cut-&-paste move. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Coverage by Kapook.com[14], Thairath[15] and Kom-Chad-Luek[16] (the last appears to be an advertorial). --Paul_012 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first one establishes some info and some notability but the other two seem very promotional, in my view. The second one looks like a thinly-veiled advert for cosmetic surgery. The third one doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's an ad. Very strange as Thairath is a broadsheet and broadsheets don't usually have articles like that. Is Kom-Chad-Luek like the Thai version of The Sun or Daily Mail? Spiderone 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thai newspapers are usually positioned as mass/sansationalist vs upmarket/quality, though all are broadsheet in size. Both Thairath and Kom-Chad-Luek fall in the sensationalist camp, but while they do feature celebrity gossip, most of their coverage is serious and not as trashy as British tabloids. Their online counterparts, however, don't always match the print papers' reputation. The Thairath piece certainly is written as a gossip column, so it could probably be discounted as reliable coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also found coverage of her on IsanGate.com[17]. It appears to be a serious content-oriented website running since 1998, but it's a one-man operation so maybe a bit borderline reliability-wise. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I placed the missing AfD banner on the nominated article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Victoria Mazze. Consensus that, despite some sourcing, notability is not met.

As 3 participants feel that it doesn't show notability, and 2 are "pro-redirect" without specific opposition to that by JayJay, I feel a further relist is unneeded just to clarify that aspect of consensus further. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Divine Madness

[edit]
The Divine Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest notability, been tagged for 10 years and could not find any sources. Fails WP:BAND. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that notability is not shown, amongst other issues Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO & WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. the coverage in secondary reliable sources is limited to name drops or quotations not amounting to any significant coverage. Roller26 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I considered relisting this, despite the dearth of anyone actually proposing delete, since there was a legitimate presumption of at least some support for delete from something sent to AfD through DRV.

However, even in that DRV it's much more "It should go there for full consideration, rather than "it should go there because it's not notable".

As such, I'm determining consensus purely from this AfD, and with it being a straight keep stating notability is shown, so is the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R/AmItheAsshole

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
R/AmItheAsshole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a speedy A7 deletion was overturned Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_December_30, under a clear consensus the sources were too significant for speedy deletion to be appropriate; but also that the article should be send to AfD for review. The main sources that may go towards notability are probably:

per the existing discussions, others might possibly be found, or possible not. In either event, as the admin closing the DRV I'm neutral, I'm just listing it here based on the consensus there to do so. WilyD 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney Safety Institute of America

[edit]
Chimney Safety Institute of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was written largely by one user, who identified themselves as affiliated with the organization on the article's talk page. This article is written as an advertisement and is in violation of WP:SOAP, nor does it meet notability as per WP:N - it is at best mentioned in passing in a few articles and virtually all of the page's content comes from the organization itself. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dance of Fire and Ice

[edit]
A Dance of Fire and Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. Sources in article are one broken link, two app store links, and a link to the creator site. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus fails to meet NCORP, other issues notwithstanding Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Insurance

[edit]
Kin Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional , and does not meet standards for notability y via WP:NCORP Essentially all the references are merely notes about funding, which may once have been acceptable, but no longer is. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG, WP:TNT, WP:NCORP, WP:POVFORK, and WP:MILL. I agree with the nominator, but the worst sin of this page is its focus on "funding" without clarifying the type of funding. To fix that issue alone would require more than ordinary editing functions. It also indicates that, other than finance, this company has never attracted any attention. It could have an equity of $4M, with everything else loans. It appears to be a franchise or agent of a larger insurance company. There are thousands of such agencies in North America alone. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. There is clear consensus here that the level of coverage this individual has received is not high enough to warrant a standalone article. A number of the !votes, particularly among those arguing to keep, have little basis in policy; in particular, mere mentions in reliable sources are insufficient for notability; to meet WP:GNG, coverage needs to be substantive. I am likewise not seeing a basis in policy for deleting before redirecting, as some people have suggested; I see no evidence that the history needs to be unavailable to the general reader.The redirect is currently protected; that should be sufficient. I would strongly discourage anyone from attempting to recreate this in the near future; if, some months down the road, subtantive new sources have appeared, this consensus may be revisited. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashli Babbitt

[edit]


Ashli Babbitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty textbook WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to 2021 United States Capitol protests. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete. She can be mentioned in a separate Wikipedia page as part of the sedition attempt that occurred yesterday. She was by far not a protester but was attempting to participate in the overthrow of a democratically elected leader. The fact she died in the attempt, though tragic, is completely irrelevant. If we're going to make a page for her, then there'd be an argument for the other three that perished in this failed attempt to overturn the election should get their own page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep but make it clear that she was a seditionist and not an innocent victim. She stormed a protected government building in an attempted coup against a democratically elected government. By all intents and purposes, she is a domestic terrorist and therefore should be portrayed as such.
  • Keep vote In order to maintain a neutral wikipedia policy. No one is forcing anyone to read the wiki article. If you're googling her name it pops up. Therefore its relevant. Out of all the completely obscure wiki entries, why is this one being singled out for "obscurity"? This is very dark stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C3:5500:F93C:9894:E3CA:53BC (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote (disclosure: I expanded this from GW's redirect from reliable sources: thank you GW for notifying me about this AfD nomination) .. BLP1E requires fulfilling all three criteria, not just one. It clearly will not meet the 2nd criteria "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". There is no basis for proposing such a likelihood. George Floyd for comparison similarly only became notable due to his death and has an entire article to himself since June 4th after his May 25th death. The 3rd condition is also not met: "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". That a person was shot to death during the protest has received very substantial coverage by many news outlets, many of which are detailing it thoroughly and rapidly, to convey the severity of the violence which occurred. WakandaQT (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If millions of people worldwide protest her killing then I can certainly see that argument; until then it is far too soon to suggest that she will achieve George Floyd levels of coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that literally "millions" had protested the May 25th death by June 4th? I'm guessing that tally came later. WakandaQT (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I also wasn't arguing for keeping the George Floyd article on June 4 either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About condition 3: "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event is about a number of people storming the US Capitol. She was simply one of many who entered the building, and died as a result. Her role in the event was not substantial, and therefore condition 3 is met --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that "remarkable in life" is a requirement to have an article about a person who is killed? There is both a George Floyd and Killing of George Floyd article. It seems pretty clear what is considered adequately remarkable to have these articles is the events of his death: he was an amateur rap artist and film star since the 90s and nobody even tried to make an article about him until after he died, so I believe you're inserting false criteria here WWGB. WakandaQT (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WWGB - the comparison with George Floyd is not adequate. --DeMonsoon (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floyd is an adequate example that objecting on the basis of "remarkable in life" is not valid grounds for exclusion if death makes remarkable. You could also argue in both cases that since video coverage exists of both of their pre-death struggles that they are actually also notable for the final moments of their life, even if they had both died by the time most people had seen the footage. WakandaQT (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF when debating AfDs. Wyliepedia @ 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a textbook WP:BLP1E, and the article is almost entirely details related to the "protests" anyway, so there's nothing here justifying a standalone page. This is like George Floyd? Let's get real here. There were at least 3 other deaths today, and this woman's death is a footnote, not the centerpiece like Floyd's. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might make a comparison to Heather Heyer as a death which occurred amidst larger events, but being shot by police storming the capitol is much more high-profile than being hit by a car in the middle of a street. WakandaQT (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the event is higher-profile, I don't think it's safe to say this death already is. Heyer was intentionally murdered by a civilian and was the only person on the ground to die at Charlottesville, neither of which you can say about Babbit, a trespasser who got unlucky. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
problem there is people will just blank the section, only way to reliably prevent that censorship is a standalone article for now. WakandaQT (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's not "censorship", and second of all, it can be prevented in the way anything can be achieved on Wikipedia: achieving consensus for its inclusion on that article's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people continually blank it, then protect the page. ... discospinster talk 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's just much easier to keep track of information with a separate page. That article you want to merge it to is bloated beyond measure. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I did no equivocate them, just pointed out that Floyd is an example of someone we can't argue was notable enough in life for an article. His lack of one prior to death is pretty good evidence of that. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: there is now coverage of things besides her death in many papers, including her online political activism, her military career, her widower and orphaned children. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: only 1 is met, not 2 and 3. Explained above. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no notability outside of Capitol events, so delete page and create redirect to appropriate section in 2021 United States Capitol protests. I realize that people are citing WP:RAPID to justify keeping it, but it is not our place to guess if she will become more notable (see WP:CRYSTAL), and as things currently stand, she is not notable. Also note that WP:RAPID does not state that new non-notable pages should be kept automatically in the short term; it suggests alternatives to deletion as one option – i.e. a merge to another page, as is being proposed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there is no section and if we did that it's pretty clearly going to get snipped down and eliminated eventually, which is why she didn't have one to begin with. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
her death happened as a result of whoever pulled the trigger, and "manner" is merely "gunshot victim". Beyond manner it's the context/circumstances and coverage. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That criteria is not enough to exclude people from having an article. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be pushing for that with all the activity that page has, fair content about her would be hard to retain and monitor in that flurry. A stub is appropriate. This way we can properly detail what reliable sources have revealed without it further bloating the main article and then using that bloat as precedent to trim details about the subject. WakandaQT (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this page itself doesn't have very much going for it, other than a short background and the fact that she had posted about QAnon and election conspiracy stuff, and seeing as how at least three other people have died in this protest, it would make more sense to include a brief section about "Casualties of the 2021 US Capitol protests" than have four stub articles about people who are otherwise not very noteworthy in themselves. Fernsong (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Babbitt shows to generate significant coverage and become a specific cultural talking point in and of it self like George Floyd or Heather Heyer, the article can be rewritten. But as of now, it hasn't proven itself to be notable. Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note though that Heather Heyer is a redirect. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted! Sorry about that, I didn't check - the context in which people were bringing it up made it sound like an article. As for Floyd, Babbitt and Floyd aren't nearly similar. Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is gender bias relevant? Is anyone supporting deletion because the victim was a woman? 45.251.33.62 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would only make sense if we kept a male victim and ignored a female victim. Otherwise it's frankly completely irrelevant. BeŻet (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El_C 16:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Blinken

[edit]
Meir Blinken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quick search turned up few relevant results, none of which were notable. Relatives of notable people are not inherently notable. Also only one source. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: I attempted a WP:HEY because I believe that the subject plainly passes WP:GNG. In just a few minutes of searching I found half a dozen dedicated reviews of his books. It is extremely rare for a (mostly) fiction author from more than a century ago who wrote in a language other than English to have easily available online reviews of their work, and this is clear evidence of notability. Many literary critics were still actively reviewing, critiquing, and even compiling and re-publishing his books just within the last few decades, even including a university press publication of his collected works. In light of this he also has a clear argument under WP:AUTHOR 3: critics specifically and repeatedly focus on his co-creation with other members of his generation of a new type of Yiddish-American literature. Needless to say, this notability is not contingent on his relatives, so the fact that he got a recent bump in news coverage from his relative being named to a government post doesn't mean that WP:NOTINHERITED takes away his notability as a writer. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enigform

[edit]
Enigform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest notability, fails WP:PRODUCT and has been tagged for several years. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton, California

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ashton, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, here we are again, revisiting a 4th class post office cited only to Durham. Searching is a spray of false hits but the only relevant ones either say that it is a post office or fail to indicate that it was a town of any size. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now I Know why, A user named Carlossuarez46 has mass created possibly thousands of stubs about California ghost towns that may or may not have actually existed. I estimate around 470-500 of these articles have been deleted or proposed/Nominated deletion.--Kieran207 talk 15:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've been able to PROD some, but this one had to go through separately, and it has been difficult to get group noms through. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We tried that, it was called Nupedia, and it didn't do so well!--Milowent • hasspoken 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that GEOLAND doesn't apply, and that notability can't be shown through specific cases Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High Hickory, Kentucky

[edit]
High Hickory, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think WP:GEOLAND is met here. Topos show a High Hickory School at first, but later two buildings at a crossroads west of the school with the label "High Hickory". Newspapers.com results are for literal trees, a road, and a modern horse breeding farm. Google and gbooks don't contribute anything about a community here, just the road and farm. GEOLAND isn't met and neither is WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources."   // Timothy :: talk  01:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_7&oldid=1001267508"