Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 11	December 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi Kamala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG to begin with. Also fails WP:ACTOR. The only source cited here doesn't seem to be very independent. It's strange that the title of the source is about her while she is not even in the lead role. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Missing references to support notability. Duncan079 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR/WP:BIO/WP:GNG the claims are overstated as I find several places about her that claim she was in Annum Innum Ennum but finding several cast lists she is not listed on any so must have been a minor role at best. KylieTastic (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiest, California[edit]

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

This may have been where Mr. Wiest's house once was, though I doubt it: the spot is now occupied by a pair decidedly proletarian properties, and the various references seem to indicate that Wiest held quite a bit of property. At any rate, the topos show buildings there, and across the canal, and while those depictions are pretty questionable when compared with the aerials, it's pretty clear that there wasn't a significant town here at any point, nor can I find any references to same. The reference to Wiest Lake is an irrelevancy given that the lake is over two miles away across the expanse of farm fields. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and TimothyBlue. While there is some information on this location it is too sketchy, with possible inaccuracies (a source states the town was flooded by a lake, and no real sourcing beyond location information that the place may have existed. These locations do not have the slightest notability for article space. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of USC Trojans baseball seasons. Missvain (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 USC Trojans baseball team[edit]

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

Team season article for a cancelled season. Only source says all the games cancelled. placeholder for a season that did not happen. Consists only of empty sections and details from the team article. noq (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a notable season, as it was not even played. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going by the article it said they played fifteen games (team schedule page) before 3/12...but I'm not sure I want to delete or keep based on that since the games were played for naught, so I'll wait for others to comment before committing either way. Nate • (chatter) 11:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of USC Trojans baseball seasons. Not enough here to sustain an article on an individual season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ejgreen. It's a plausible search term for someone who didn't know the season was cancelled, and that will help them find the information they need, but given the season never actually happened, it's not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of USC Trojans baseball seasons per Ejgreen; we can easily note the pre-pandemic record (they did have one game in conference play) and footnote the remainder was cancelled due to COVID-19. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Missvain (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Corradino[edit]

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

Promotional article. Even if the subject were notable, WP:TNT would apply. But cannot see enough in the article or elsewhere to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the text of the article says it all: he's notable for being .. a good instructor. The sourcing is uniformly terrible as well. Curiocurio (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Curiocurio: I'm not sure the New York Institute of Photography where he is/was an instructor is notable either, altho it has an article. It is not to be confused with the International Center of Photography in New York which is indeed notable, and runs a school, a museum and houses an archive. Netherzone (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think even one of the article's 27 source qualifies as a reliable source. Also, I agree with what Curiocurio said. Possibly (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is highly promotional; heavily edited by a couple of anonymous single purpose editors WP:SPA. The subject does not meet the criteria for notability as per WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST nor WP:NPROF. Netherzone (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional puff piece of someone who has no notability. Schwede 66 15:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite promotional fails in passing WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, above discussion, and especially Netherzone and Possibly. Reasonable Wikipedians disagree whether Al Jazeera is a reliable source, but none of the others are. New York Institute of Photography is not really a gallery -- it's a for-profit college -- while International Center of Photography was notable (although it moved off the beaten path as the Covid-19 pandemic struck NYC and hasn't re-gained an audience yet). In any case, he's plainly not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we rid Wikipedia of promotionalist junk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion. No wide coverage and no reliable sources. Does not come close to meeting WP:GNG standards. The article is nothing but fluff. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draft. I have moved it to Draft:Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, no evidence main production has begun, should be moved to draft space until production is shown to have begun or gains significant coverage BOVINEBOY2008 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bovineboy2008, do you want me to move the page back to draftspace? Starzoner (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and redirect to Night_at_the_Museum_(film_series)#Animated_Film_(4th_Film_&_Disney+). No confirmation that any sort of production has begun, so at this point turning it into a draft is best. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify Per the article " upcoming American animated film." no indication it is currently notable. Jeepday (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a draft for a third NATM film already at Draft:Night at the Museum (upcoming film).★Trekker (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Harris (musician)[edit]

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

the topic of this article fails Wikipedia Notability , the few sources on the article are Nothing but crappy , No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only evidence of notability is that the guy was the singer of Judas Iscariot, which is a notable band. But yeah, the sourcing is crappy and couldn't find anything reliable about him. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Akronowner (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or hard redirect to Judas Iscariot (band). Bearian (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, other than local PR work and music websites Travelmite (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Precisely what nom Samat lib already stated. WP:GNG isn’t satisfied and the sourcing isn’t solid enough.Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fields' disease[edit]

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

The only significant coverage appears to be around the only two people who reportedly have this disease. Curiously, I could not find a single journal article that covered the disease, even in brief. This article is effectively a WP:COATRACK for the Fields twins. I don't think the twins are themselves notable, so I don't think a rename/rescope would work either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not covered in any medical sources, not even case studies it seems, coverage of the sisters is relatively minor. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also am not finding anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per CaptainEek, there is insufficient coverage of the disease itself to warrant an article (it fails WP:GNG), whilst the coverage of those suffering from the disease also appears not to meet the bar of notability for them independently of this condition. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neill Jameson[edit]

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

the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability , the few sources on the article is NOT RELIEBLE ; the article loaded with so much talk with No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as another black metal singer failing WP:NMUSIC, or redirect to Krieg_(band). Bearian (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, other than local PR work. Travelmite (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG can find nothing to show notability outside of bands. KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Platoon[edit]

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

Non-notable unproduced film, no evidence film ever entered main production, pre-production did not receive significant coverage, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 21:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, unproduced film that never entered production. Pretty much all sources being used are nothing more than press releases or from non-reliable sources. As neither the creator nor production company is notable, there is no place to Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:HAMMER. Besides the issues noted above, the information box does match the rest of the article. Whoever was paid to write this did a very poor job proofreading it. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication it was released, nor that it notable. Jeepday (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We're going to keep for now. Feel free to discuss WP:MERGE on the on the appropriate talk page(s). Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful Thinking: a theological ABC[edit]

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

almost no third party sources, except a book that covers indiscriminately everything he wrote. No evidence of an particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Needs more citations for verification and that dictionary is not well known. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning merge back to a section on the author's works. Buechner, having been both prolific and acclaimed, has lots of references to passages in his books, and this one is no exception. That said, in looking through some of those, it's pretty clear that this is a lesser work where there are a few passages that caught readers' eyes, rather than wholesale engagement with the work as separate from his other work. I also gather that it is one of a set of works which address common themes. I don't think deletion is in order, if only so people are aware that it isn't a dictionary or glossary, but it seems to me better treated in the fairly abbreviated section on his nonfiction. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, first up, Buechner is historically significant in the field of theology so point no. 5 is met, apart from this, Wishful Thinking has been the subject of multiple reviews, a quick gsearch brings up reviews in The New York Times - "Mere Christianity’ Wishful Thinking A Theological ABC." (review by Edmund Fuller who writes "The same stylistic power, subtlety and originality that have distinguished his novels, from “A Long Day's Dying” (1950) to “Open Heart” (1972), lift “Wishful Thinking” far above commonplace religion books nearly to the level of C.S. Lewis's “Screwtape Letters.” An artist is at work here in the vineyard of theology, an able aphorist with a natural gift for gnomics, a wit with wisdom." - reinforces point 5:)), kirkus - star review here, CrossCurrents - subscription required, Choice - here, a couple of dissertations that reference Wishful Thinking - here, and here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a section on Frederick Buechner or include more details on the Frederick Buechner bibliography article. It's not a clear pass of WP:NBOOK, but also not a clear fail. Has been the subject of multiple published works (Criteria #1) but most might not be independent or reliable enough. And it's unclear if the author meets Criteria #5. Interesting that this trilogy is not mentioned on the author's article. Should be condensed and moved to that article, but allow someone to recreate this article if it more clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article that are given above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons given above. I also wish to note that the article now cites three independent works, two scholarly and one popular: Dale Brown's authoritative and comprehensive study of Buechner's work, The Book of Buechner (2006); Marjorie Casebier McCoy's scholarly and selective study of a number of Buechner's works up to 1987, Frederick Buechner: Novelist and Theologian of the Lost and Found (1988); and Jeffrey Munroe's popular study of Buechner's works, Reading Buechner: Exploring the Work of a Master Memoirist, Novelist, Theologian, and Preacher (2019). It should also be noted that all of these works were published by respectable presses (Westminster John Knox Press, Harper and Row, and InterVarsity Press, respectively). With this in view, the original complaints against this article (that there are (a) 'almost no third party sources', and (b) that the third party source referenced merely 'indiscriminately' covers 'everything he wrote') must surely now be rejected. Objection (a) is no longer true and objection (b) is debatable at best -- scholarly works that attempt to account for an author's body of work are not 'indiscriminate', but are undertaken based on the generally accepted premise that both the author and his work are considered worthy of such research. This last point is strengthened by the status of the publishing houses that have chosen to publish the works cited, because well-respected publishing houses do not publish literary criticism on authors and works of low importance. InklingScholarWycliffeHall (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oromodae[edit]

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

Not a notable book. No independent sources and no substantial coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reviews or significant coverage; fails all guidelines as mentioned above Spiderone 20:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this meets WP:NBOOK. Ping me if reviews are found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weltmacht[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American black metal band with a German name. Non-notable band. Tagged for notability since 2011, and tagged for sources since 2008. The article itself was created in 2006. Anyways, the band had three notable members and were signed to a notable label (even though they were specialized in bands who follow Nazi ideology), but I still bring this to Afd because of the sourcing, or lack thereof. There is no sourcing. During a google search I couldn't find anything besides the usual databases, retail sites, blogs, lyrics sites and download sites. There are a few album reviews scattered here and there, but unfortunately, they are featured on these blogs. So yeah, I think they are not notable, but the title can be redirected to any of the members' articles. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No cited sources and fails WP:NOTABLE, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. –Cupper52^Discuss! 29:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom . fail Wikipedia Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, As an alternative, Krieg (band) and Dying Fetus might be notable, so this could be redirected. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Dying Fetus and Krieg are notable, but I don't see a point in redirecting this title to either of those. Only if this text is copied to those articles, under a new section called "Weltmacht" and the title can stay as a redirect to that small section. But that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, other than local PR work. Travelmite (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian R. Decker[edit]

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

Does not meet all three WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. The article is misleading as the subject only played in regional productions of lasted big name musical. No news coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one contributor to the article, who received multiple comments on his/her talk page for disruptive and un-sourced editing. Kolma8 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage for this ensemble and small-part player. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major roles, failing WP:NACTOR and no significant coverage, failing WP:GNG Spiderone 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played two major principal roles in two musicals during his career: Quasimodo in "Hunchback" at Tuachan Center for the Arts in 2016 and Houdini in the 2020 audiobook "d'ILLUSION," which was released earlier this year. Coverage recently came out about virtual event he co-produced to benefit his hometown theater due to the pandemic. -- HM2021 04:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HM2021 is the creator of the article. Fails to provide how this article meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets music notability guidelines by being in a major play "Hunchback." Peter303x (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 08:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Distruptive editor made this article. Arsonxists (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have multiple, if any roles in any major productions, has average to small fan base, and has not made any significant impacts on the entertainment community, therefore failing all three points in WP:NACTOR. Coreykai (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary actor who has performed in local or reparatory stages. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Taylor-Ritson[edit]

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

Non notable actress - I've added a few reviews to the article however those are for 1 film, It's also worth noting she starred in Casualty this year and like the rest of her filmography there's nothing confirming this.

IMHO this is a case of TOOSOON, she potentially meets NACTOR however she IMHO fails GNG. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article subject may be notable in the future; at present, there isn't significant coverage any independent, neutral, reliable sources.. WEPrism222 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG notability by having significant coverage. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER[reply]
Delete I did my due diligence and only found passing mentions and KidzNews (lol) offering the most "significant" coverage. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this subject. Missvain (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find enough to satisfice GNG. Kolma8 (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 delete. Deleting, feel free to redirect by discussing wherever is appropriate. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ego / Mirror[edit]

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

Almost completely empty article. Fails WP:SONG. Can be covered on the artists' respective pages. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burial (musician) per WP:NSINGLE, no indication this notable by it's self. Jeepday (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepday, ordinarily I would suggest redirecting too, but in this situation I'm not sure where the target would be - the singles are a collaboration between Thom Yorke, Four Tet and Burial ... is there a reason you think Burial is the best option? Popcornfud (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Popcornfud: because that is the first one listed in the article and the reference. we can only do a single redirect so the choices are limited. I am not opposed to a straight delete or a redirect to one of the others. Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm really surprised that a collaboration between three of the best known and most highly acclaimed exponents of experimental electronic music in the UK had so little coverage – in contrast, there's been plenty of coverage of their recently released collaboration "Her Revolution"/"His Rope". But it does look like this will have to be deleted per WP:XY and one line mentioning the single added to the articles of each artist, as Popcornfud suggests. There's no particular reason to redirect to Burial than any of the other artists... indeed, the single was released on Four Tet's label, so his article would seem to have a better claim as a redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the song. Search results return only passing mentions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Making a snow closure here, clear community consensus that current and historic members of state/provincial legislatures in federal systems are presumed notable, per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Parra[edit]

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

Being in a state legistlature 10 years ago is not notable. Article has serious issues of NPOV and V that can't easily be remedied. None of the sources are legitimate (ex. Maxim) and the only other real sources are about her endorsing actual notable politicians Colestefan (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree per nom. violation of WP:Notability and extremely lack of sources with WP:Verifiability. WeifengYang (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presumed notable per WP:NPOL. It may be a coincidence that she announced her candidacy for a Congress seat in 2022 fifteen hours ago. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:NPOL. Arsonxists (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is every single California state legislator in history automatically entitled to a Wikipedia page? There does not appear to be anything else notable about Nicole either during her time in the legislature or since. It's clear this article is shambolic in terms of its content and sources. Colestefan (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first sentence, yes, per WP:NPOL, which I linked before you even started this discussion. If the current sourcing in the article is inadequate then WP:SOFIXIT applies. You could start by looking at the sources found by clicking on "books" and "news" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a couple of things that could use improvement, but the subject is notable. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 17:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former member of the California State Assembly. Passed WP:NPOL --Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the whole point of WP:NPOL is that we have complete coverage of important political offices. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sourcing in the article is bad, but it's easy to find coverage of her elections and her work in the legislature. I added an article about her endorsement by the CA Farm Bureau. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cleaned up some of the sourcing, but still borderline. WP:NPOl doesn’t automatically justify an article for every historic legislator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:B:7DE:2C46:202A:E81B:4081 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep state legislators are notable and this has lots of historic precedent, no case for deletion. Article has issues but nothing that can't be fixed. Kingofthedead (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Diet[edit]

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

Seems spammy, cannot determine WP:Notability with all the promotional text, MAY qualify for speedy deletion under that category but it's marginal. I know "Deletion is not cleanup" but if the topic is notable, WP:Blow it up and start over seems appropriate in this case. It looks like a related topic was deleted on the Russian Wikipedia recently, assuming Google Translate is giving anything close to an accurate translation: ru:Стокгольмская диета ("Stockholm diet" according to Google), ru:Википедия:К удалению/20 ноября 2020#Стокгольмская диета (Google says "К удалению" means "To delete"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems more like an advert then an actual Wikipedia Page. Arsonxists (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do not delete Sure it can be improved with more critical information. It is a very popular in Eastern and South Europe Aleksandrs Lapajevs (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Properly formatted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandrs Lapajevs: Nominator here. I hope that within a few days the article is changed so I, the nominator, can support keeping it. That will require three things, 2 of which we as editors can do, the first of which neither you nor I nor any other editor can do.

First, it requires that the topic meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. See WP:Notability for details. If that isn't done, there's no point in spending time on the other things. We, as editors, can't wave a magic wand and cause reliable, independent sources to suddenly cover this topic in-depth if they have not done so already.

Second, there must be suitable references that demonstrate this. That is also covered in the "notability" guideline. As part of that, it must be fairly easy for editors who are assessing "is this topic notable" to spot those references. Sometimes, listing 2-3 of the "best" references on the talk page will do the trick.

Third, the article needs to be rewritten so WP:Blow it up and start over no longer applies. Strictly speaking, WP:Deletion is not cleanup but this article is so close to qualifying for speedy deletion as "spam" (other editors may say it actually DOES qualify) that even if 1 and 2 were taken care of tomorrow, at least some "cleanup" needs to be done immediately after, for the good of the encyclopedia.

Ideally, 1 and 2 should be completed sooner rather than later, and those, plus a good start on 3, well before this discussion closes. These discussions usually run for a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I didn't notice earlier, but Draft:Stockholm Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created on 25 November by new account Nutritionist1987 (talk · contribs), deleted on 30 November by Jimfbleak as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion," then a new draft with the same name was created by Nutritionist1987 on 3 December. That draft was moved to the main encyclopedia by Aleksandrs Lapajevs (talk · contribs) on 12 December. Aleksandrs Lapajevs is not new to Wikipedia, but his edit count is under 200 on all projects combined and very low on the English Wikipedia. He also created the Russian version, ru:Стокгольмская диета as ru:Участник:Aleksandrs Lapajevs/Черновик before moving it to the main encyclopedia a minute later. It was deleted from the Russian Wikipedia by Venzz on 27 November. ru: Logs for user Aleksandrs Lapajevs, page logs for :ru:Стокгольмская диета davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you want from me? I deleted the article in Russian Wikipedia because the significance was not shown. And it contained false information. For example, some inorganic eggs were mentioned there. There were many sources out there, but they didn't talk about diet. Sou it was fake sourses. Sorry for my bad English. --Venzz (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like an ad and would need to be TNT'd anyway. I can't believe that the web results are all clickbait. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete honestly this could've been g11'd, it's complete spam and total BS without any basis in science or medicine and obviously isn't notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure advertising. JIP | Talk 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has to be kept. First, its not so different from any other diet pages on wikipedia, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Weight_Loss_Coach and others. Second, in our region its the most popular weight loss method and has become part of our culture. Its being talked about on TV, radio, printed magazines, theatre shows, it has changed even a law. Third, it has over 5 million users, many celebrities. Fourth, even though it has been very popular and every person in our region has heard about it and many have used, until now there has not been any encyclopaedic source of information about it. Lets improve this page, but not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutritionist1987 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has to be kept. No. It doesn't. Wikipedia isn't the place to peddle pseudo-scientific fad diets. Praxidicae (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable/advert KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Long Beach[edit]

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

Article about a band sourced only to self-published pieces and tagged for notability since 2009. No RIS found on a search. Does not pass WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Err... I don't know what happened here, but this band already had an Afd where its notability was proven with reliable sources. Now, the page is in a terrible state in terms of sourcing. Where did the RS go? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry I don’t know. The previous AfD didn’t show in the talk page and the article is still sitting in the June 2009 sort for articles with unclear notability. I’ll withdraw the nomination and take the tag off. Mccapra (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Mccapra (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Celestial Movies. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Movies Asia[edit]

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

Article about a short-lived tv channel in China that only existed for two years. Source search in Chinese does not suggest this passes WP:CORP. Tagged for notability for eleven years. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Celestial Movies per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree a merge/redirect seems the best course, Mccapra (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzamat Akinbile Yussuf[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The position on WP:GNG is dubious although The Guardian (Nigeria) is certainly a WP:RS. I think the balance is tipped by the fact that she does meet WP:NPOL as a minister in a federal state (Lagos) government. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability exist,per WP:NEXIST, also there are several articles for commissioners at state level for USA, of whom the articles possessed only two to three references and they are left without deletion, , it only provide two to four references, see this [1] and this [2] also here are several articles for commissioners at state level [3].- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 14:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the difference is between elected and appointed. NPOL, if you read the entire context, deals with elected officials. Historically, appointed officials don't automatically qualify for NPOL, and should meet GNG. I can't find any similar articles on US officials at this level who are appointed, rather than elected. And if NPOL doesn't exist, there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably just enough coverage for WP:GNG (also search for alt spelling "Uzamat Akinbile Yusuf"). KylieTastic (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm deleting but feel free to redirect if you wish. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penny O'Brien[edit]

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

Does not pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Item has been submitted and declined several times without much if anything in the way of improvement. In the last instance was rejected as lacking notability and it was suggested that attempts to creaate a valid submission had prbably been exhausted. Despite this it was moved, out of process, to main. Quick search reveals only those results previously rejected as refs and not any other usable results. Eagleash (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. See WP:NYA. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original contributor has been told, this person does not meet any of the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not have significant news sourcessignificant coverage. WEPrism222 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - fails NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you all want to speedy deletion cause it's doesn't meet the requirements but it's has the enough tho because for the WP:NYA she acted in really famous game and one of the important character who affecting the story and about the news source i don't want to add more than i wrote to make it on reliable source and i did bring them! About the others i edited them! So please have a read! And anything you want me to remove or add just go to my talk page! , thank you!

— Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:30, 16 December 2020‎ (UTC).[reply]

Delete - should be A7. being a voice of a video game character isn't a claim of notability. And even that is poorly sourced. 174.254.192.78 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is not just a voice actress of a game she is also of a lot of movies don't just throw excuse without knowing anything mate! The problem is there is no page talking about the movies! What should i do? Delete all this work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sourcing showing this actress meeting the requirements for inclusion for an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly give up about doing this article you lads won't help me (except curb safe charmer) doing this i fix something a problem appears please i want one of you just explain the whole things to make it right i see definitely no problem with the article as I've seen a lot of articles like these yet you do nothing with it just want my effort and time won't go waste so i ask you lads politely to tell me what's wrong 1. About the realible source i brought them all and added lot more 2. And actress for game not enough? I add her movies 3. Actress doesn't meet the inclusion for an actress? How is that even possible? And yet i fixed yet and i see there's absolutely no problem with this article and I'm really running out of times 4 or 5 hours this need to be completed so please I ask for your experience and help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Photos of rdr2: Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) have an article about every actor or actress. The Wikipedia community has come up with guidelines for which to include and which not to include. If a subject is not notable (as appears to be the case here) then no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - you won't be able to 'make it right'. That's why other editors aren't rushing to help you improve it. Why do you 'need it to be completed' and why are you 'running out of time'? See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: uhhh...never mind it's not very important now...i decided to give some time until some more reliable source and more notability i was on hurry to prepare this Wikipedia article as a gift but it's nevermind now! And i understand everything you'll said! So it's okay :) — Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:51, 17 December 2020‎ (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR and GNG and any other guideline Spiderone 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters#Molly O'Shea. I have struck my previous delete !vote after becoming aware of a section in this article that not only describes the character the actress plays in the game but also has content about the actress. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters#Molly O'Shea - I declined this twice at AfC and still think it fails WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shilole[edit]

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

Another upcoming musician with NO relevant topic to talk about , Fail Wikipedia Notability rules , few sources on the article seems NOT relieble sources , theres NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No relevant topic to talk about" is not a reason for AfD. Also, she passes general notability guidelines. You can find the subject covered in a significant way in the following sources:

"Shilole recalls first time ex-husband battered her, says he was jealous of her success" - The Standard
"Shilole: I am a victim of domestic violence" - The Citizen
"Actress Shilole flaunts house, urges women to seek independence" - The Standard
"‘Teenage pregnancy cut short dreams of becoming a Pilot’, says Shilole" - The Citizen
"Shilole opens up, reveals reason why she's eying MP's seat" - The Standard
"Shilole: I wanted to be a pilot" - The Citizen
Mbaraka Mwinshehe and the Shilole beating furore" from The Guardian (a mainstream newspaper in Tanzania)
"I’m okay, says singer Shilole days after breaking silence on domestic abuse" from The Standard
"Shilole husband 'envied' success" from The Star
"Vanessa Mdee splashes cash for fellow bongo artiste’s honeymoon at luxurious Kempinski" - Nairobi News
"Tanzanian Singer Shilole wants to become a District Commissioner" - The Standard
"Why has a popular Tanzanian singer been banned?" - BBC

Heck, turns out she even owns a restaurant. Missvain (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason for deletion offered and sources have been obviously demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing listed meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Government COVID-19 press conference videos[edit]

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

As I stated on the article's talk page (I'll add a bit here): My concern is that these governmental press conferences don't warrant a list article, unless they have a significant impact or are more notable than just having update posts from BBC and one article from WalesOnline. As I said in the talk page, governments do conferences and howto videos all the time. This article has no other context, such as the makings of the videos, background, or controversies, etc., but merely packed with WP:HOWTO videos. The synopsis is also non-neutral, also having self-references like "we" and "I." I just don't see the need for this list. Information vital for understanding the pandemic in Wales can just be included in the Wales article. As I said again on the talk page, compilations of media are allowed by making a category on Wikimedia Commons. Gerald WL 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic information. We can organize these through a category on Wikimedia Commons. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally agree with points above. Not every press conference by an administration is notable and this is not something you would ever expect to find in an encyclopedic work. There are better homes for these videos than Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of links to videos. I have never seen such a blatant violation of what Wikipedia is not in this regard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I have evidently put up material that is considered inappropriate to Wikipedia. I saw it as complementary to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales article, providing summary information about each video thus potentially sparing time and effort for the trusting reader who'd rather not sit through a whole broadcast, and sparing the C-19/Wales article from potential bloat. I still consider this list together with its informal summaries a valuable resource, and will attempt, as some have suggested, to move it onto Wikimedia. Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:LISTN. If not already mentioned in something like COVID-19 pandemic in Wales then we can add a sentence or two about the videos being made available because of a request from Wikimedia UK, but these videos definitely shouldn't have their own standalone article. This is Paul (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also the person who wrote the article appears not to understand that the Senedd and Welsh Government are two separate entities, describing it as the "Senedd of the Welsh Government". This is Paul (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draft. This article is now located at Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film). Missvain (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, no significant coverage on the actual production of the film, and no source indicating production has begun, should be moved back to draft space, moved too soon BOVINEBOY2008 12:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), can always be split off if something of actual note emerges. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a whole lot of spec and 'umm, er, this is what we think is happening', and the article is poorly written. WP:DEADLINE, and a better article can definitely be created if the project is confirmed to happen. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify-valid article in the future, but not for now. Wait until first major trailer drops per WP:NFF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree that this article can be created later when more information comes out. As for now, there is little-to-no information to cite, and it can easily be recreated once more information comes out. NettingFish15019 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Disney+ original film about an acclaimed book series, will be worth an article in due time. For now, wait until more information is available, such as a proper release date or development interviews. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify content and then redirect page link to main page.★Trekker (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I accept there is some local coverage, but given that it looks mainly unattributed, I doubt it is either significant or wholly independent from the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southend Borough Combination[edit]

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

This league is played between levels 17 and 21 of the English league system and the Premier Division of this league, therefore, sits 6 places below the level where it would have inherent notability (level 11). It therefore needs to demonstrate WP:GNG. I found nothing on ProQuest and a newspaper search showed that the results were listed in the Chelmsford Chronicle from time to time. The Yellow Advertiser does occasionally list results for the league here. I am yet to find even one instance of actual WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gazette provides regular coverage of the league – full write-ups rather than simply a list of results. Number 5 7 20:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Zari Hassan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and her relationship with Diamond Platnumz was covered in reliable secondary sources.[4][5][6][7][8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Yunghanns[edit]

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

A non-notable author with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Likely a case of undisclosed paid editing too. GSS ^💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This does pass WP:NAUTHOR with independent sources that demonstrate notability like Business Insiderand Yahoo. Millgh (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are both press releases from GlobeNewswire so please spend some time on reading the wikpedia policies to understand why your most recent edit was reverted. GSS ^💬 10:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and/or sockpuppetry. MER-C 17:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:AUTHOR. All sources appear to be primary (including many, many press releases), unreliable (storefronts and the like), and trivial mentions. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria. All of the sources cited in the article appear to be written by the subject or based upon information written by the subject (WP:PRIMARY). Even the local news outlet sources are re-published content from unreliable sources like ABNewswire. In addition, there is no third-party coverage cited that could be used to assert the subject meets the criteria laid down by WP:NAUTHOR. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thandekile Ruth Mason Mvusi[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Although there are sources to attest TRMM's existence, they do not constitute "significant coverage" and some are not WP:RS (most are WP:PRIMARY). —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bummer to support deleting this article, but, I did my due diligence and she does not satisfy WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. As the nominator stated, the majority of sourcing are passing mentions or primary sources. Missvain (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. The article has been moved to draft space. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the Dozen (2022 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, no evidence that the film has begun principal production, moved from draft space too soon, should be moved back BOVINEBOY2008 11:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are suggesting a Draftify as an alternative to deletion, correct? Foxnpichu (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that would be most advisable. I would move it myself, but since it was just taken out of draftspace, I though it should be discussed. BOVINEBOY2008 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely the most sensible thing to do. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I'm leaning towards as well. There's the source that says "Disney Confirms ALL Movies Shut Down For COVID Have Restarted Or Completed Filming" however I don't see where there's any confirmation that this film has begun filming. I don't know if this would count as one of those. It was supposed to have started filming this summer but hadn't started filming yet, plus there was no confirmation of actors other than Baker and Union as far as I can tell. (The WP article erroneously stated that Hall has joined the production, however it wasn't backed up by the source.) Without some sort of confirmation that this was one of those films intended by the Disney announcement, at the very least we can't assume that principal photography has begun. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's very unlikely it has. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadline and Hollywood Reporter are enough to show significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Has not been released. Jeepday (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rooney (footballer, born 1978)[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing one game of professional football in the Football League Trophy; a totally inconsequential appearance. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this appearance alone nor his subsequent career as a semi-pro/amateur. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. The best sources that I could find were a brief mention in a local paper and a transfer announcement. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 12:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable figure in the context of a general encyclopaedia who would probably only get a brief and cursory mention on a specialist Fandom site. RobinCarmody (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Food Markets[edit]

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

The only significant coverage on this chain is related to closures of it's stores. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not give a reason to delete. The chain has been merged or taken over by a variety of other notable retailers and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Insofar as the chain has a complex history, it seems best to keep the page distinct for clarity. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added articles on the chain's private label and unusual COVID-19 mask policy. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a Yellow Page to have every small market. I just don't see enough coverage on this to justify a page for it, plus the fact that it went bankrupt and Albertsons bought it, may mean that the name may change and this would be irrelevant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expertwikiguy, Thanks, I added a comment with additional reasoning. If the only significant coverage is of the closure, then I would argue that does not make it notable. ~RAM (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just wanted to add some additional reasoning behind my AfD, since that seems to be why people don't agree.
I suggested it because as I noted, the only significant coverage of the chain from reliable sources is regarding the closures of their stores. I would argue if something is not notable during it's existence, then it is certainly not notable during it's closure, absent anything else - which there is not. ~RAM (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, that is why I also voted DELETE. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search will naturally tend to put the most recent news at the top and, for this subject, that news is of their latest downturn -- like many other retail businesses in 2020. But the chain was founded before the Internet and so its growth and success will not be so prominent on the Internet. But if you conduct a thorough search, rather than a superficial one, then one can find a detailed company history and archive at Rutgers. And, here's an article in the NYT, from 1987, before they started their online edition. See WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The strong sources provided by Toughpigs and Andrew Davidson.
2. Dinger, Ed (2015). "Kings Food Markets Inc.". In Pederson, Jay (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 166. Farmington Hills, Michigan: St. James Press. pp. 265–268. ISBN 978-1-55862-925-7.
  This entry is over 2,000 words long. From https://www.library.hbs.edu/Find/Databases/International-Directory-of-Company-Histories, the International Directory of Company Histories contains "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies."
  The entry's summary notes:
  Kings Food Markets Inc. operates 25 upscale supermarkets in the New York City metropolitan area, of which 23 are located in New Jersey and single units in New York and Connecticut. Kings offers gourmet meats, fresh seafood, a wide variety of world cheeses and deli meats, organic and locally grown produce, artisan baked goods, and an extensive floral department. Kings is known for its selection of prepared foods that includes more than 20 entrées; 11 green salads; a dozen sandwiches; and a wide range of deli salads, sides, and soups. Kings also operates a catering division. The Short Hills, New Jersey, store maintains a cooking studio, a concept pioneered by Kings well before other grocers. Kings is majority-owned by New York investment firm Angelo, Gordon & Company.
  The entry has a section titled "Family Business Origins". Here is the first paragraph of the section:
  Kings Food Markets was founded by the Bildner family, who immigrated to the United States in the 1800s from Eastern Europe in what was then part of the AustroHungarian Empire. The family's involvement in food retailing began when brothers of the second generation acquired a grocery store in Brooklyn in 1917. The oldest brother, Ben Bildner, left to become a supervisor for the A&P chain, and by 1930 he had saved enough money to open a supermarket, a novel concept at the time, in Maspeth, Long Island. Traditionally, grocers waited on customers individually, but the self-service format introduced by the Piggly Wiggly chain would revolutionize the industry. Ben Bildner was one of the first grocers in the country to make the transition.
  The entry has sections titled "Family Business Origins" (303 words), "World War II Limitations" (236 words), "Allen Bildner Joins Kings: 1948" (528 words), "Transition to Upscale Grocery Begins: 1978" (272 words), "On the Block: 1999" (240 words), and "Change in Leadership: 2010" (249 words).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kings Food Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources identified about the company. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented above, mainly by Toughpigs and Cunard, the entry in the International Directory of Company Histories is particularly indicative of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N.I.L. (band)[edit]

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

Just another non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable doom/black metal band. The presented sources do not establish notability. Nothing better found during a Google search, as I have only found the standard databases, youtube videos, blogs and retail sites. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability in the article, nothing notable found via google. Jeepday (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Butler (footballer)[edit]

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

This footballer played 1 minute on the Austrian second tier. There are two sources about him in the article, but I can't help to think that the prospect of him as a music mogul is WP:TOOSOON. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scrapes by on NFOOTBALL and I think there's sufficient sourcing out there to merit an article. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we were limiting our scope to the sources in the article, I would actually be leaning delete. At the moment, though, he is subject to a lot of coverage in Caribbean media. For example this, this, this and this. I'm not sure if all of these sources are reliable, as I am unfamiliar with them, but I think that there's enough there to take it over the GNG line. Since he is a BLP, we need to be careful how we incorporate this sort of story into the article but I think that there's enough there. Spiderone 10:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick google search reveals quite a few sources, especially from Jamaican media. Just about passing WP:GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep barely scrapes by WP:NFOOTY, but there's enough coverage where this isn't a straight up delete - however, if his football career doesn't continue might be worth taking a second look in a couple years. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Jagtap[edit]

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

Not significant roles played in multiple notable TV shows, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She is known for her role as Radha in the Color Marathi's TV show Radha Prem Rangi Rangali so redirect to this would be appropriate until notability is achieved. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability. Multiple citations are from the same sites. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 15:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

786 Cosmetics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since nomination I have found 2 more good sources and added. There are more in Google news, but they were not from notable publications. But I feel there is enough coverage on this one to justify a keep, specially the best publications include Peta.org (2 mentions, I didn't add the 2nd one) and Allure magazine.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reads like an advertisement and I do not believe it satisfies WP: ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per Celestina007. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article looks like an advertisement, the sources look like advertisements, all the Google results for the company name look like advertisements. There's absolutely nothing in sight that looks like independent third-party coverage. What would there be to cover? The only thing that looks remotely close to news coverage is this post from PETA, which... well, it looks remotely close to news coverage. But it isn't. jp×g 06:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being included in a list of beauty companies in a beauty magazine (Allure) does not strike me as significant coverage and neither do any of the other references. Lennart97 (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè Moak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. New product launch. UPE. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP. The "initiatives" section is some impressive PR writing! MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passes neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeau, California[edit]

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

I am a bit confused here. The article says this place was on the railroad east of Cameron and west of Tehachapi, but since Cameron is east of Tehachapi, this directions are impossible. There's no GNIS entry, but from scanning the topos from well west of Tehachapi to east of Cameron, there's no feature on the railroad called Nadeau. There's a neighborhood in LA known as Nadeau, so this is making it a bit difficult to search. Newspapers.com results are for a hotel, a bar, and a vineyard in LA, even searching for Nadeau Kern. Gudde's Nadeau references appear to be refering to LA. I just can't find anything about this supposed place with impossible directions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hog Farm: There does, in fact, seem to have been a Nadeau in Kern County^[1]^[2], the associated mine of which does roughly seem to be connected by an abandoned railroad from what I can see on Google Maps. However, said Nadeau and mine seem to be north and east of both Cameron and Tehachapi, if this site is to be believed. The cite in the article I can't see, though, perhaps it would help if the author showed a G Books link if available. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 14:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Geology, California Division of Mines and (1886). Report of the State Geologist. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.
^ The Statistician and Economist: 1st-23d Issue 1876-1905/06. L.P. McCarty. 1878.

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. If there are not RS showing where the supposed location is and there is not SIGCOV about the location, it fails notability. If there was one or the other, perhaps a case could be made, but failing both, this should definetely be deleted. A place that the name is uncertain, the location is unknown, and the history, details, etc is completely unknown is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above rather exhaustive search indicates nothing that would qualify under the GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moccasin, Plumas County, California[edit]

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

Here the issue is position drift. The older topos show Moccasin as a point on the railroad itself, one end of a long passing siding. On the other side of the river they show what looks to be a camp of some sort, and there's one aerial from the 1940s which tends to support this. All of that goes away and is replaced by a few houses, and for some reason the name "Moccasin" wanders across the river and eventually labels these houses. I cannot find anything that explains any of this: as soon as the search is restricted to Plumas County, the hits are all either clickbait or tabular data featuring a variety of false hits. At this point I have to think that Moccasin is the siding and not whatever it is on the other side of the river, but lacking any explanation of the older version of the latter I cannot be entirely sure. Mangoe (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 22:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and likely fails WP:GEOLAND Spiderone 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musethica[edit]

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

Topic notability seems too low to be included on Wikipedia as an independent article Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Might be notable, but the lack of-inline citations and only a list of "references" doesn't help the case. Would need a rewrite, otherwise I'd delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chen, Nan (2017-06-02). "Berlin-based program makes classical music more accessible". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  The article notes: "This is the idea behind Berlin-based Musethica program, a nonprofit Levitan co-founded with economics teacher Carmen Marcuello in Spain in 2012. The name, Musethica, is a combination of music and aesthetics. The program chooses young musicians to play at public concerts as part of their education. The majority of such concerts are held in places where people have little access to music, such as hospitals, prisons and shelter homes. Now, Musethica is active in eight countries, including Germany, Poland, Spain and Israel. Three years ago, it came to China for the first time."
2. Davis, Barry (2014-07-18). "Something for everyone". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  The article notes:
  The Germany-based Israeli viola player will bring his Musethica program to Israel as part of the 30th edition of the Kol Hamusica Festival, which will based at Kfar Blum in the Galilee, from July 22 to 26. Levitan devised the concept in 2009, and it was officially launched in 2012 in Zaragoza, Spain, in conjunction with economics lecturer Prof. Carmen Marcuello. Musethica is now also active in Berlin and is spreading to other locations around the world.
  Musethica introduces a new concept and approach of higher education to classical music performance. The central tenet of the project is to create a model for gifted music students to perform on a regular basis for different audiences, principally for people who do not typically attend traditional concert halls. The concerts comprise top-class chamber music, from solo performances to octet formats, and comprise a basic and invaluable part of the education of the young musicians, who receive no fee for their stage work.
3. Davis, Barry (2015-10-15). "Music hath power for one and all". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  The article notes, "The Musethica concept was conceived in 2009 by Berlin-based Israeli viola player Avri Levitan. Musethica set out its first stall in Zaragoza, Spain, in 2012 under the auspices of Prof. Carmen Marcuello, a social economics lecturer at the local university. Together with Shiloah and former America Israel Cultural Foundation head and flutist Orit Naor, Levitan has introduced thousands of Israelis from all walks of life and sectors of society to the fun, magic and curative powers of classical music."
4. Amouyal, Noa (2017-04-27). "Sharing a combined vision". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  The article notes: "Musethica provides concerts not only for people with disabilities, but also for prisoners, women who have suffered domestic abuse, Holocaust survivors and other groups often forgotten by society."
5. Reider, Maxim (2016-10-27). "About music and ethics: The Musethica festival brings international musicians to schools and special-needs institutions". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
6. "Llega a Zaragoza el Festival Musethica, ocho días de música clásica y talento" [The Musethica Festival arrives in Zaragoza, eight days of classical music and talent]. 20 minutos (in Spanish). 2018-06-08. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Musethica to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am saving the article's sources and external links to this AfD so they are preserved (I have not done an evaluation of these sources):
1. Jerusalem Post, (10.15.2015) “Musethica hath power for one and all” http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Music-hath-power-for-one-and-all-426012
2. García, R. (2015): “Como preparar con éxito un concierto o audición”, Redbook Ediciones, Barcelona, pp. 175-177
3. TEDx Talks, Musethica - Revolution in classical music education" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp9jLlFWlzs
4. Aragón TV (17.06.2015) Musethica La vida misma, Reportaje, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWl1o8ggPtw
5. Beijing Today, (10.06.2014) “The Changing Landscape of Chinese Charity”, 2014 https://beijingtoday.com.cn/2014/06/changing-landscape-chinese-charity/
6. Dziennikpolski (29.08.2015) “Doskonalą warsztat, grając nawet w więzieniach”, http://www.dziennikpolski24.pl/artykul/6405568,doskonala-warsztat-grajac-nawet-w-wiezieniach,id,t.html
7. El País (24.6.2014) “Música para todos los públicos“ http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2014/06/24/actualidad/1403630784_346919.html
8. García, R. (2015): “Como preparar con éxito un concierto o audición”, Redbook Ediciones, Barcelona, pp. 175–177
9. Hela Gotland, (22.07.2015) Stråktrio uppträdde på asylboendet http://www.helagotland.se/kulturnoje/straktrio-upptradde-pa-asylboendet-11329399.aspx
10. Heraldo de Aragón (03.11.2015) “El proyecto social y educativo Musethica cumple tres años y crea una orquesta"
11. Opera World (18.12.2014) “Musethica: Un proyecto educativo diferente” http://www.operaworld.es/musethica/
12. Ukrania Today (13.04.2015) “Musethica's classical music breaches prison walls”, 2015 http://uatoday.tv/society/musethica-s-classical-music-breaches-prison-walls-421089.html
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources presented above demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trescape, California[edit]

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

Topos show an largely undeveloped point on the railroad. It's listed as a station on the Southern Pacific in [9]. Can't find anything else describing the place, other mentions are as a railroad landmark. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 00:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Herbert London. Missvain (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Center for Policy Research[edit]

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of this organization. We cannot construct an article on the subject if there are no RS to build an article from. The article appears to have been created by an individual employed by the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Herbert London, the founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This article from The Daily Beast titled "The Creepily Influential Trumpist Foreign-Policy Think Tank You've Never Heard Of" is a very substantial article about London Center for Policy Research. One more source would allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
I did a very brief search for sources and did not find more sources. I will support a standalone article if another editor finds a second source that provides substantial coverage about the London Center for Policy Research.
Cunard (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Herbert London. Initially I was going to say redirect, but merge is more appropriate. Not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yewande Sadiku[edit]

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

I consider this an unmistakable copyvio of the first paragraphs of the subjectsprofile on their prootional website https://kibusinessforum.com/portfolio/hon-yewande-sadiku/

Another admin, whom I have notified, does not agree. Comparing the article the arrangement and wording is followed exactly, except of the omission of a few words or phrases. It's much more similar than what I would normally consider an excessively close paraphrase, and we delete even those.

It also fails to show notability: the references are either mere notices, or promotional interviews where the subject says whatever they care to , and are therefor not independent.enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Honestly I do not believe GNG is satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sustained coverage in WP:RS. The beginning of the article is rearranged from the first paragraph of the promotional page the nominator linked, odd capitalization and all. She's very accomplished and has much to be proud of, but this does not make her notable, and it's faintly possible that this is a vanity page. FalconK (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alas, I tried to find significant coverage but most of it consists passing mentions or press release-y reading information about meetings she held. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paymaster Landing, California[edit]

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

This is another one I cannot find any text description of, and the topos seem, well, confused. GMaps shows Walter's Camp, which depending on whether you believe the topos (which eventually show both it and the "landing" as two places) or this mention may or may not be on the same site; I have some trouble believing the topos because they show a pattern of buildings which seems to be a misinterpretation of the aerials of the same era, but there are some other hints that the landing was a bit north of the current camp. At any rate, there's nothing opposing the obvious interpretation of this as a place one could get across the river, but there's also no testimony to it as a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing relevant on newspapers.com. That second referenced linked appears to be the same thing as this site, based on the Gbooks snippet I could get. However, I can't find anything else. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met, and WP:GNG does not seem to be, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of association football mascots. I just chose a merge suggested by User:Spiderone. Feel free to suggest other merges on the appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mascots of Brazilian football sides[edit]

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

As per WP:LISTN - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - I see no evidence of that for this topic.
WP:LISTPURP - this list is not informative, it does not aid in navigation (none of its entries are notable) nor is it useful for development purposes.
WP:ATD - this could potentially be merged to List of association football mascots, another list with its own issues, though. I'm also strongly against merging anything that's basically WP:OR.

Mascots are a notable topic but I'm not sure that an exhaustive list of mascots in Brazil is a notable topic. I also don't believe that having a mascot is a distinctive feature. Several football teams, whether pro, semi-pro or amateur, will have a mascot of some form. This is no more notable than a list of football physios or football kits or football chants. Spiderone 22:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mascots of major sports teams always get media coverage. That's why we have plenty of these list. Category:Association football mascots Dream Focus 02:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of this media coverage for these Brazilian mascots? Most of the articles linked are not similar to this one. FIFA World Cup official mascots tend to get a fair amount of coverage but that doesn't mean that this topic can inherit notability from that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bit of a flawed argument in this particular example as the only similar article is List of J.League mascots and I'm not sure that there's yet strong community consensus that that is notable. Spiderone 08:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2015/jun/23/strange-terrifying-world-football-mascots-in-pictures covers them as a group, and then you can search for any individual name and find coverage for it such as https://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/2018/07/05/brazil-canary-mascot-world-cup Dream Focus 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup mascots generally get good coverage and the article FIFA World Cup official mascots is warranted. My issue is that Brazilian club mascots are not covered as a group by reliable sources. Your Guardian source only briefly mentions one Brazilian mascot. Spiderone 08:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Guardian article not loading up for you? It list all the mascots. Dream Focus 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the version I am seeing. The version I am seeing is a photo gallery of mascots from countries as diverse as Scotland, Germany, Russia and Australia. Only one of the photos is of a Brazilian mascot (and the inclusion of one photo in a gallery, with a one-sentence caption, hardly constitutes significant coverage) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I should've looked closer at that. Anyway, if anyone speaks the Portuguese language, they will surely find coverage of them. Sports magazines give coverage to them, newspapers, etc. Dream Focus 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why is this notable? Giant Snowman 11:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this wounds up getting kept, it should be renamed to List of mascots of Brazilian football clubs because a) it's a list and b) "sides" is too informal a term to use in an article title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was doing just fine for 15 years. Sides could be renamed to clubs though. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article existing for 15 years doesn't mean that it meets our inclusion criteria. Spiderone 22:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has anyone managed to find any reliable sources that explore this topic at the required level of detail? Spiderone 19:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Agree with the AfD proposal, I want to merge. Arsonxists (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm starting to lean that way too. The list isn't huge so it's an unnecessary fork Spiderone 09:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all above. A Google search reveals many articles discussing groups of soccer mascots, generally by league, theme, or country rather than all mascots globally, but it's better to merge them all into one place rather than fork by these categories given the circumstances. Smartyllama (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you merge it to? Category:Lists of mascots shows other such lists, but I don't see where this one could be merged to. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say List of association football mascots is the most obvious target Spiderone 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to William Haggard#Colonel Charles Russell series. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Charles Michael Russell[edit]

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

Fictional character with no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As written, clearly fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG and I am not seeing any good sources to improve this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Haggard, the author/creator of the character. Probably also move in the process to remove "Colonel" from the page title. But either way redirects are cheap and there is an obvious target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this does not meet the WP:GNG and there aren't sources to get it there. Would accept a redirect as it could be a reasonable search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Shooterwalker. BlueD954 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Delete[reply]
Keep With an article for the author of the book series, and several of the books, a redirect and merge to William Haggard#Colonel Charles Russell series is surely the minimum here. But searching in ProQuest, one comes across several articles in the media over the years, suggesting a general knowledge of the hero of this book series. Examples are William Haggard's obituary in The Times, The Telegraph, a 1995 piece in The Observer, a 2009 piece in Independent, and there and elsewhere I find no end of book reviews, including from the New York Times and The Guardian; many written with the assumption that you already know who this character is. There's also three good Sources listed in the article, from the 1970s, and I also quickly find a good reference in "Spies and Holy Wars: The Middle East in 20th-Century Crime Fiction By Reeva Spector Simon link. WP:Recentism is a huge problem with this project, and I don't think it helps to eliminate articles whose subject would have been familiar to many a half-century ago. We wouldn't be having this discussion in 1975. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already has several good sources and there are plenty more visible in the search links above. Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Haggard#Colonel Charles Russell series. Article does not meet notability guidelines, but redirects are cheap and there is a good target. // Timothy :: talk 23:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The sources linked by Nfitz above seem to show enough discussion and analysis of the character, and this book has a section on the character as well: A History of Spy Fiction: Reflections on the Genre. The sources are not included in the article, but they do WP:NEXIST. -2pou (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC) 2pou (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Sourcing on the character itself doesn't seem substantial enough. I'm unsure of the merit of shifting this to a series overview article rather than a character article, but I think incubating it in the main article is a better idea for now. TTN (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Haggard#Colonel Charles Russell series. Most content is worthless WP:NOTPLOT material; what little real-world content there is can be merged from the history. Not notable out of the context of the author. Sandstein 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Hari[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- coverage is passing mentions in two lists of films nominated for awards. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at this version of the article, which was heavily edited by a sock IP of a blocked, disruptive editor, there are a number of other sources. Most of them appear to be passing mentions, some are 404s, some are duplicates of some of the others, I think. Some other source found include TBIVision.com and C21media.net. The second one is definitely a press release site, but I'm not sure about TBI or if it is a reliable source in this context. Another source here. From what I can tell, Kidscreen is a trade magazine as well as a company that hosts a summit each year to bring together companies and people producing content in the children's animation space. So they appear to be central to a lot of the wheeling/dealing. I don't see that they've been discussed at WP:RSN before, but this is potentially a reliable source that is talking about Studio Hari's workings in some detail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete — What HighKing said. I agree with their rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comedy Couple. A singer's popularity does not contribute directly to their meeting our notability standards, and so comments pointing to popularity carry little weight. As such there's consensus here that this creation occurred too soon; if more coverage becomes available, the history will remain available to anyone wishing to recreate this. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmaya Bhatnagar[edit]

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

Non notable singer who does not satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. A Google search of her mostly shows mentions and no in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources was found to qualify for WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It's disheartening to see this nomination. She is one of the popular Indie folk singers under Independent record label. Her works are published in reliable sources (for example:Rolling stone). She already made her Bollywood playback singing debut with romantic drama Comedy Couple as a composer. Listeners (including musician like A. R. Rahman) say that such Indie folk creators are more relatable and trendsetting than other popular artists. She definitely meets WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. (Note to admins & reviewers: I was the creator of this article) Nalbarian (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalbarian: Being a singer is not an assertion of notability. They need to satisfy a notability criteria which subject of this article fails to satisfy any relevant criteria. The Rolling stone article contains significant discussion of the subject, but multiple such sources are needed to establish notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SINGER. She clearly "[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." For instance, [10], [11], [12]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Please look carefully, ref 1 has been published through rollingstoneindia and is a duplicate article to [13]. In order to qualify for WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. Ref 2 & 3 are announcements of her music release and do not amount to establishing notability.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Magzter article is a re-publishing of the one on the Rolling Stone website. I'd still go with keep though, she has enough coverage to meet WP:SINGER as there is no indication that the coverage is non-independent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of each source cited. Reference 1 is an announcement of music release and is based on comments from the subject herself. The second one is a tweet. The third one does not even mention her. The forth reference is a press release article mentioning her in passing. The fifth one is a link to a video song from Comedy Couple that the subject has composed. The sixth one is an announcement of her second song. While sixth reference is based on an interview. These sources do not add up to WP:SIGCOV. Being covered through independent sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. These sources should address the topic directly and in detail.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one more thing to add to the argument: As per [rules], she " has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.." For example, Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Links- Spotify Chai & Acoustic [14] and Sad Indie Bops [15]. Nalbarian (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She also meets composers and lyricists criteria as she wrote every song (including for the film Comedy Couple). Nalbarian (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable and enough. From my point of view, she is a budding star. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her only major work Comedy Couple as per point 10. This is a probable case of WP:TOOSOON and she might be there one day, but not now. Her only major work is in this film, the other two YouTube singles don't have any major coverage to be notable. And no, a mention from someone on Twitter is not a notability criterion yet. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, those songs are not some mere YouTube songs and all songs of her are well-received in multiple music related reliable sites. We’re living in an age of singles, and there are tons of ways to put one song to work. Modern singers distribute their song as a single to various platforms like YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music. For instance- Just saw that one of her song is for sale on Amazon [[16]] and other songs are available on all major platforms. Redirect does not do justice to such Indie Folk unique singers. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on. Nalbarian (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where a singer distributes a song. If it doesn't meet the requirements of notability, it is not notable. A search on these two songs gives only the listing results on various platforms. There is no secondary significant coverage. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on is not a valid argument to have an individual article either. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review needs detailed observations (lyrics, unique styles, catchy melodies, instruments etc.). See these links - [17] [18] Nalbarian (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, those are not reviews. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Redirect (I leave it up to closer to decide, I suppose). I wasn't convinced by any of the sourcing I found aside from the Rolling Stone pieces (and wow, the quality of RS India is nothing like the American RS) and that is just one source publishing a lot about her because clearly one of the writers is a fan. I dug deep, and again, not enough for me to find that she passes GNG or MUSICIAN. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to show that this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Kolma8 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. May be WP:TOOSOON.☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hope we're not violating this. Please redirect. Don't delete. After few years, someone responsible editor from us will start from that point. Nalbarian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Nardia[edit]

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

Time to put this up for removal: person with no inherent notability, no breathtaking achievements that cry out for notability, no reliable sources of any credence providing proper discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added more links to English and international sources proving the notability of the guy. Romayan (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, but this reads like a press release, this is from a local British paper whose authority to declare someone the "world’s leading expert in a self-defence martial art" is highly questionable, and those "Asian" sources like this are hardly in-depth sourcing: that one reads simply like a commercial blurb. None of these can be argued to be sufficient, and sufficiently reliable and independent, sources to write a BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nardia is defenitely notable: Black Belt Magazine, and Israel Hayom: two excellent sources. Tzahy (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a martial arts instructor. Didn't found the Karap federation or invent some new technique. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see the notability here. Number 5 7 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is coverage in Black Belt magazine, but that's only one source. The remaining sources are from the KAPAP organization, promotional literature for his various demos, and the interview in Israel Hayom. The first two sets are not independent and interviews generally aren't considered as meeting WP:GNG. He didn't found KAPAP and he's not even mentioned in the KAPAP article on WP (which is unsourced). He doesn't appear to meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Black Belt is the leading martial arts magazine and there is a full article about Nardia, that should enough for natability; Furthermore, Israel Hayom has an interview with him and it's a good source. Tzahy (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not usually considered enough to show notability and, as I said above, interviews don't count towards notability since they are first party and non-independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - sources fail to establish notability of the subject Spiderone 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything which would indicate they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Logan County, Kentucky. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whippoorwill, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick calls it a locale (geography), which falls below the WP:GEOLAND bar. Topographic maps show a small cluster of buildings. Newspapers.com results mention a Whippoorwill Creek, a Whippoorwill Church, and a Whippoorwill railroad station, but nothing indicative of a notable community. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND as not a legally recognized community and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The church is still there, and this history makes no mention of it being in any sort of town; it only mentions a Whippoorwill bridge. The station mention is definitely for somewhere else, as I found no sign of rails anywhere near here. I'm qualifying my response because old topos do show a small concentration of buildings, and because the area has been messed up to some extent by the four lane US highway construction, and there are lots of indications that a number a buildings have been torn down. Indeed, the GoogleCar found a decrepit garage building which in the GMaps aerial is completely gone. But I'm not convinced anyone thought of this point as a town. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning~~ Keep I was going to say we should keep this; aside from the various bits about the church, there's this article that said it had a grocery store and a community of farmers, this article about a local homemakers' group, and this bit about a murder there. What gives me pause is the history of Whippoorwill Baptist Church that I found, which claims it's in Schochoh; this suggests that at the very least Whippoorwill isn't much of a community anymore, and what's worth noting of its history could be covered in our (admittedly very stubby) Schochoh, Kentucky article. Either way I'm not in favor of deleting it entirely. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the newspaper.com citation, but there's just no chance it's talking about the same church, in that Schochoh is nowhere near the supposed location of this settlement; also, from what I can tell, this church has always had its current name. The store references seems a bit more promising, though. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I should have checked that first; they're in completely different parts of the county. I think this is the Whippoorwill Church that article is about, and it's definitely in Schochoh proper. Striking the "leaning" part. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Logan County, Kentucky There really isn't anything worth merging and there really aren't any sources that fit within WP:GEOLAND. Mere inclusion on GNIS is not guarantee of notability and appears to have been one of thousands of GNIS-only stubs created en masse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tripled the size of the article with everything I could find on the community. It appears it is a legally recognized place, however, as it was named as the location of an accident in a lawsuit. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logan County, Kentucky. I don't see SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:GEOLAND offers a presumption but not a guarantee. Even if the article somehow squeaks past notability guidelines, that doesn't mean it must or should have a standalone article and this is a case where the content will be better placed in the closest parent. // Timothy :: talk 18:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is where I differ from those thinking inclusion should be, or is somehow better off, always covered in a stand alone permanent stub, as opposed to expanding an existing and "admittedly very stubby" article. This becomes even more of an issue when only GNIS ("official") is used as a sole source using "presumed notability" as an only criteria. To add to this, it becomes even more of an issue when the article is very obviously a dictionary entry.

I am all about historical coverage in an encyclopedia but Hog Farm had valid reasons for nominating the article. The "community" (obviously historical) can be found listed in the Logan County, Kentucky article so there is existing currently unsourced coverage. If all we are going to have is a permanent dictionary stub, that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines, I would think esteemed editors and Admins would not argue with redirecting this article to the more suitable place and add these found references. Then "someone", at some future time, might create a viable article. I would even wonder why this would be controversial? -- Otr500 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you meant a different place, but if you're thinking of Schochoh, Kentucky as being the more suitable place, it's actually in a completely different part of the county; I was wrong about that in my initial comment. Maybe the article could be merged somewhere else, but that wouldn't be an appropriate target. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any confusion. I had stated the community was already "listed in the Logan County, Kentucky article" though unsourced. Why could the references not be added there for a future article more than the mentioned dictionary entry? -- Otr500 (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. As of this writing, the article has three references other than the ever reliable WP:GNIS.

[19] - "a collision at Whippoorwill, Kentucky". This does not indicate that there is a legally recognized, notable community at Whippoorwill. While a lawsuit is a legal event, that it is not legal recognition of a locale. For example if there an article about an arrest and court case because 555 1st st. had a loud party, that does not make that locale legally recognized. There is some debate about what legally recognized means. I feel that it includes a post office, almost no one agrees with me (which is fine). Most people would agree that legal recognition is a place that has elected officials such as a village etc. (There are exceptions, ask me about Gerlach, Nevada, which has an improvement district that has elected officials (but I digress)). So, being in a lawsuit does mean that the locale is legally recognized.
[20] - "In 1830 a new building was erected on the same road near Whippoorwill bridge." So now we know that in 1830 there was a church near a bridge named Whippoorwill. Still no legal recognition and a church near a bridge is not very notable.
[21] - "part owner of a large general store at Whippoorwill". Ok, so now there was a church, a bridge and a general store. Still no legal recognition and not notable.

Searching newspapers.com for "Whippoorwill Logan in Kentucky" finds

[22], which says that Whippoorwill is being removed from the Rand-McNally 1993 road map based on census data. Or may R-M realized that there was no there, there? :-).
Newspapers.com also yield hits about fishing in Big and Little Whippoorwill Creek, that there is a Whippoorwill church and more about the general store.
There was [23] which is an 1883 clipping that mentions Whippoorwill Station.

Searching GBooks finds

a Whippoorwill station, and an article that indicates that Whippoorwill was not a post office ca. 1881.
The best thing I saw in GBooks was [24] which lists Whippoorwill as a town or village. However this is still not notable. It could be that this is where Whippoorwill was added to the Logan County, Kentucky article. I encourage someone to update that article with the citation if they are so inclined.
Even Rennick says "Whippoorwill (Logan) - See Ferguson". Ferguson, Kentucky is in a different county and Ferguson, Logan County, Kentucky has no page. So, the reference (Rennick) that the GNIS probably started with says "see somewhere else" and that somewhere else does not have a article.
The History of Kentucky (1998) mentions Whippoorwill the creek and the L&N station, but does not state that there was a community there.

So, in summary, Whippoorwill, which has a great name, has had a bridge, a station, a church and a general store. The station means that WP:STATION might apply. I found no evidence of a post office, though I did find one reference that specifically states that there was no post office. So, I have found no evidence that this locale was legally recognized. Thus #1 of WP:GEOLAND was not met. I found a few trivial references, but I found no non-trivial references like a book or article about the locale. Thus #2 of WP:GEOLAND has not been met. This locale was not and is not legally recognized and has no non-trivial coverage, so unless someone comes up with WP:RS sources that have non-trival coverage, the article should be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not seeing evidence of this meeting any notability criterion, nor am I seeing a persuasive IAR argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shii Studies Review[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Is indexed in some selective databases. as ias.edu". However, ias.edu is not an indexing service or database. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random stub on random, non-notable journal. In fact, absolutely no useful info at all. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been very well cited given its three years of activity. Its editors are notable and it it published by a prominent academic publisher.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you perhaps give us a link that actually shows that this journal is well-cited? Just a bunch of WP:GHITS doesn't do the job, I'm afraid and GScholar (click the link "scholar" in the header) gives not a single citation... --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS cannot be referred in every case. Where can an academic journal be mentioned except for academic websites/circles? The google scholar is not an appropriate criterion for humanities either. This journal is the second most reliable academic Shii journal (after Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/ It was you who argued this was notable because of the number of GHITS, not me. 2/Please provide a source for the assertion that this is "the second most reliable academic Shii journal". 3/ And although Humanities journals are generally less-cited than journals in the Social Sciences (and even less in the Sciences), it is rather rare to find a journal that after 3 years (an admittedly short period) is barely cited or even not cited at all. --Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I meant that referring to WP:GHITS as wrong view is not acceptable not referring to Goolgle search. 2. Since there is no other academic journal in shii studies published by a notable editor and publisher, that proposition is true. 3. If it is not cited then what does the search show? It is already cited in more than ten English Wikipedia pages (as a minor evidence). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/ I don't understand what you are trying to say. You linked a Google search in your original comments. Far as I can see, GHITS applies. 2/ This looks like WP:SYNTH. If there are indeed only 2 journals in this subject area, then either saying "the second most reliable academic Shii journal" or "the least important academic Shii journal" would both be correct and both are meaningless, because not based in policy. 3/ Being cited in WP pages is absolutely meaningless. I hope I don't even need to explain this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I said GHITS is not true for this case because here the google search shows the "academic websites" which mention the journal not ad hoc non-reliable websites. I hope you understand. 2. This is "the least important academic Shii journal" is not correct because there are many academic journals published by non-notable editors and publishers. Then my proposition is correct and meaningful. 3. These are the coverage of the publishing of the journal by reliable independent sources: [25], [26] by Mehr News Agency, [27], [28] by Shianews, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are press release (the English sources at least, since I can't read Arabic) simply announcing that a new journal exists, not independent coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says non-independent press releases are unacceptable, not all of them. These are independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pirhayati, a press release is an official statement that the organisation gives to the press. A press release is written by the organisation itself, so never independent. PJvanMill)talk( 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NJOURNALS basically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with ALI Pirhayati. This is one of the publications that (in addition to English sites & articles) has been cited in many Persian language articles. Shiasun (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And your source for that is... ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in this Persian article, this publication is referenced. Shiasun (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of citations is not unusual, and not an indicator that the journal is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations is not handful. [34][35][36][37][38]. Of course, these are Persian sources that indicate the position of this publication in the Islamic world and even non-English speakers. Good luck Shiasun (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is barely cited and has an h-index of 2. There is one paper cited 6 times, another cited 3 times, one cited twice, and then about 15 papers cited once. Our least notable scholars have more citations than the entirety of this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think google scholar lists all the sources with a reference to this journal. It is mainly based on European languages and it does not even cover all of the books/articles in these languages. For example I don't think it covers [39], [40] and [41] which have a reference to this journal. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GS covers any language and most certainly covers any Wiley journal, any journal listed in JSTOR, and anything that is also listed in GBooks. In addition, I just went through the Wiley article that you linked to ([42]) and it does not even mention this journal, nor does it cite any article published in this journal (the word "review" comes up with 3 hits, neither of them the Shii Studies Review). As Headbomb said above, a smattering of citations is not enough for notability. Even more so if some of those citations don't exist... I understand that it is frustrating when an article that you created is nominated for deletion, but now that we're here, any "keep" !vote needs to be based on fact and policy or it will be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows two citations in Wiley; it seems that google services cannot be trusted. And where are the Persian articles mentioned above in GS? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the picture if you go from a handful of citation to a slightly bigger handful of citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NJournals is an essay so I would prefer to avoid emphasizing on it. The journal is published by a well-known publisher and its advisory board are among the best and most recognized academics of the field. I would name Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Wilferd Madelung, Farhad Daftary and etc (of course this list does not mean others are not that good). Besides, prominent authors has made contributions to this academic title. These items make the journal notable enough. Moreover, I can see the works published by the journal is indexed in repositories.lib.utexas.edu, CSIC.es, journalpublishingguide.vu.nl and schweitzer-online.de. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're quite welcome to ignore NJournals (which is designed to make it easier for journals to become notable). In that case, please tell us how this journal meets WP:GNG. The links you give are to non-selective databases that do not provide independent coverage. That there are notable scholars connected with the journal is irrelevant (see WP:NOTINHERITED), unless there is somewhere independent coverage about the fact that said scholars are involved with this publication. Without adequate sources, your !vote boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and will likely ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Thanks but it's not a matter of like or dislike. I think you're adhering to GNG more than necessary. This seems like an WP:IAR case. Look, the journal is indexed in multiple databases, advertised in various websites, managed by highly notable academics and has received works from known authors. So, it's not a WP:NOTINHERITED case. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate academic journal, It's published by Brill which is about as legitimate as you can get -- [[43]]. Moreover the journal's editors and advisers include some of the most notable authorities in academic Islamic Studies including Michael Cook, of Princeton University and Farhad Daftary, who is one of the most renowned authorities on Ismaili Shiism in the academy today. The advisory board includes includes notables from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Oxford University, the University of Chicago, McGill University, and other major establishments. See [[44]]. There are very few academic journals in the world devoted to the academic study of Shiism, this particular one is about the most Establishment vetted, supported and published one out there. To suggest it is not notable is more than a bit risible, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS ml343x (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of legitimacy, it's a question of notability. Editorial boards don't confer notability. This journal is indexed nowhere selective, doesn't have more than a handful of citations in the real world, and has no independent sources covering the journal with significant coverage beyond press release types of stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how many citations do you expect from this young journal? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Enough that it gets included in selective databases like Scopus and Journal Citation Reports, or enough to have an h-index that beats that of most tenured university professors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the "keep" !voters: If this were not an academic journal but, say, a soccer club, would you still use arguments like "this is a legitimate club", "their executive committee has notable people on it", etc? Of course not! So why should we include an article on a journal that has, so far, not made any splash in the real world at all. Given its age, we don't even know whether it'll survive. (Yes, I know that Brill is a notable and respected publisher. I have some examples on my user page of journals from notable publishers that folded after a few years and never made any impact at all). At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is the current novel, not whether it survive in the future WP:NTEMP Shiasun (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. At this moment, the journal is not notable. It may become so in the future, but at this time we don't even know whether it's going to survive, let alone become notable in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This very clearly fails the general notability guideline: there are two citations in the article and both just recite the journal description. PJvanMill)talk( 14:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC) In case it needs clarification: other sources provided so far are not any better. PJvanMill)talk( 22:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article with new sources Shiasun (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You do realize that sources need to be independent, do you? Press releases written by the co-EIC don't add to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dear Randykitty, Resources are independent. for example: Encyclopaedia Islamica website & University of Religions and Denominations website. Even news agencies like the International Quran News Agency have reported on it Shiasun (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are those in the article? I don't see them, which ones are these? --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Encyclopaedia Islamica website[45] - University of Religions and Denominations website[46] - International Quran News Agency[47]. Shiasun (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a press-release type of statement from people with an affiliation with the journal [48]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiasun, the links you've added to the article and those listed by Pirhayati above all either just repeat a statement from its editor, or just repeat the journal description. These are not independent sources, they consist mostly of content written by the people who work on the journal. They do not indicate notability. PJvanMill)talk( 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This journal is kept in a lot of libraries in lots of universities. This is inline with Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)#Remarks). There are 36 libaries at least (2[49], 2[50], 29[51], 1 [52], 1[53], 1[54]). This record is fairly acceptable for this 3 years old journal. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 36 Universities is really not a lot. Especially since the journal is likely bundled with Brill subscription packages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, this journal should be considered in the limited domain of Shii academic journals. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not. It should be considered against academic journals in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it should. The notability of Minister of State in Monaco (with a 38000 population) should not be considered against US president. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, they are considered against all ministers of state, which are all deemed notable on Wikipeda. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's because they are "important" irrespective of the size of their country. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent sourcing or representation in selective indexes. There does not appear to be a uniquely good redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject fails WP:GNG. Nothing I can find indicates that any of the criteria of WP:NJOURNAL are met either. I note that notability for journals is neither inherent nor inherited despite assertions to the contrary. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot see how this passes WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNAL also seems very problematic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but at this point there is a lack of sources to show notability. RL0919 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temitope Fabiyi[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from MUSICBIO and generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up empty. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of thr criteria in WP:MUSIC. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAIL Wikipedia Notability , but in the future she might be Notable , not now Samat lib (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 21:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cortena, California[edit]

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

I had to search both names given, and from what I can determine its existence as a rail junction was relatively short-lived, as the Colusa and Lake Railroad died early, being taken up during WW I. Meanwhile, Cortena apparently the name of the corresponding spot on the crossing trackage, now operated as the California Northern by Genesee. If find numerous references to an ag station operated here in the 1920s, and the grain elevator complex appears on most of the topos. What I don't see is a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Future (Organization)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG, despite having notable members in Earle, and Wadhams. Sources in the article either don't mention this organization, or are primary or unreliable. I can't turn up really anything in the way of significant coverage that is not produced by people affiliated with the group. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NORG Facing Future is an non-profit educational organization AaronNGray — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON does not seem to apply to non-profit organizations AaronNGray

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Facing Future does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
I was unable to find coverage about Facing Future. No prejudice against recreating the article once Facing Future receives significant coverage in reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to the page to demonstrate verify Stuart Scott's notability (including Stuart Scott introducing Greta Thunberg at COP24) and Facing Futures pre history and indirect prominance. AaronNGray

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't make any assertion of notability and doesn't cite any of the type of coverage in secondary sources that would allow it to meet the WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamba, California[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG - No GNIS entry, not on topos, not in Gudde, and I couldn't find anything super meaningful on Gbooks or newspapers.com. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Measuring down the rails the appropriate distance puts one roughly at the west end of the long passing siding at Sanborn. There's nothing else there and this is pretty clearly a rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 20:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all applicable guidelines Spiderone 16:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As always, GNG is the trump card over local guidelines, and as pointed out by SportingFlyer and Mnnlaxer amongst others, there is little to show he passes this. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antone Belt[edit]

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

Tone Belt was a collegiate long jumper. He has never even competed in a single international championship for adults. He did compete in one World Junior Championships, but did not win. As such, Tone Belt fails Wikipedia guidelines as a junior athlete who never transisted to the senior stage. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the subject has already been subject to a deletion discussion at another title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tone Belt.
Keep The subject has won the American collegiate national title and been competitive in multiple events at senior national level in the United States, in additional to having won an international junior medal. Also notable for having a number of national-level firsts for the Louisville Cardinals team. He ranked in the global top 80 for two events in 2006. SFB 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previously deleted in 2010, all of his accomplishments were before that, and the article's sourcing is terrible in terms of WP:GNG. Agree with nom here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is covered by his national championship in my mind. Sourcing is iffy, but that seems to be the case more often than not for track and field, especially as a jumper instead of a runner. I found that he is now an associate athletic director at Toledo, and had a leadership role in the athletic department at William & Mary. In other words, the article could be improved and possibly saved.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NTRACK and lack of media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks WP:NTRACK and little media coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the above editors are correct in asserting that this person fails WP:NTRACK, he does pass WP:NCOLLATH as being an All-American (let alone a 7 time All-American]]. While he didn't win multiple national titles, he did win one, and came in second the following year, that with the All-American status puts him over the edge for NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH reads: College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. It's not accomplishment-based, it's coverage based, and I haven't seen any qualifying coverage yet. I get 13 hits on Newspapers.com when typing in "Antone Belt" 2006-2020, and all 13 hits are agate. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I read that differently to you as something that is accomplishment-based. That effectively says that (for example) the reporting of winning of multiple individual national titles itself constitutes "non-trivial media coverage". Note that the guideline is specifically saying coverage of the listed accomplishments is to be treated as non-trivial, not that additional coverage beyond that it required. Kind of wiki-lawyering here which isn't my bag and I prefer to stand on my reasons above, but if people are looking for a rules-based outcome then clearly the subject is in WP:NCOLLATH scope. SFB 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. "Non-trivial" here clearly means the media coverage - if the accomplishment is non-trivial but the media coverage is trivial, then the article would fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The achievements section was a clear COPYVIO, so I've removed it. Apologies for doing so while there's an AfD active, but copyvios are important. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree with previously stated delete comments - impressive college athlete, not an Olympian, no additional big competitions beyond what’s stated and poorly-sourced in the article. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Agree however that WP:COLLATH seems to be the strongest claim. Duncan079 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails significant coverage in reliable sources. Current sourcing is very weak and nothing new has been proposed. GNG trumps COLLATH in marginal cases. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (band)[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2013 and seen no improvement. My WP:BEFORE has shown several user generated sources, none of which pass as IRS. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Oricon shows their releases have charted (though unfortunately they no longer publicly show charting releases prior to 2005 and I don't have a paid subscription). They do pass WP:GNG and have several articles written about them, but only in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: evidence of Notability is still a major problem on this article, if there was any sources to save the article, lets try Samat lib (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after verification I found nothing , therefore No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the charting on a national chart and therefore passing criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if any sources of Notability can be provided here on the article, I will change my VOTE ; we all understand that Wikipedia need sreliable sources of any charts or news for open verification, NOT just a words saying .... WE need proof of it, BUT if not, then the criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC is Not meet ... still No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are hundreds of irrelevant charts, like zuzuzuzu charts .. only Wikipedia Notable charts are relevant for Notability Samat lib (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oricon is a good chart as defined by Wikipedia WikiProject Music Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charting passes WP:MUSIC; not particularly close on this one. Chubbles (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons by those given above who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Please mind the below comments before restoring the article. czar 02:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elgi Equipments[edit]

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

Promotional article about company that does not satisfy corporate notability. If this were in draft space, it would be declined as being about what the company says about itself, and not about what third parties say about the company. It has been moved into draft space twice, and has been moved back into article space by the author twice. Author has not addressed the question of whether they are being paid or any other conflict of interest. Nominating for a full deletion discussion as an alternative to speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publicly traded company in India, almost certainly notable (see ~~WP:PUBLIC~~WP:LISTED) and almost certainly has significant coverage in independent sources. Did nominator perform a WP:BEFORE search for them? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to WP:LISTED not WP:PUBLIC. In any case, it doesn't guarantee automatic notability. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Dankeshankar - Are you requesting that the article be draftified as an alternative to deletion, which is what User:Theroadislong and User:Scope creep had done earlier? The banner on an article that is tagged for deletion states that it should not be moved while deletion is being discussed. A conclusion to draftify is acceptable to me if that is what you are asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey guys, sorry to respond late, I am still figuring out how to respond on Wikipedia. I've noted the article has been sent for speedy deletion twice. Yes, I moved the article into draft space because after getting a suggestion from Admins Praxidae and Robert, I felt like there might be changes. But I have mentioned all third party sources and have tried to change as much as I can. So, as of my affiliation. I've no ties with the company nor I am getting paid to do this. I would like to understand the specifics than getting vague answers on why it's on deletion always. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankeshankar (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert McClenon Praxidicae Please provide me with information on how to clean up the article and make it 'encyclopedic'. I am still unable to figure out what's wrong and your expertise might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankeshankar (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert McClenon Can you just put it under the draft, so I can change it to a much better and acceptable version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankeshankar (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- as requested by author. Any COIs from significant contributors should be disclosed prior to submission. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as requested, hopefully references can be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakaengam Jitmuangnon[edit]

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

Currently, doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderator, I oppose the AFD put on this article.

Sakaengam Jitmuangnon is a star in the stadiums, he has consistently been recognized by Muay Thai media as one of the most exciting fighters in the current circuit. In fact, in 2016, he won the Fight of the Year. Just yesterday, he and his superstar camp-mates, Rodtang, and Nuenglanlek were signed by Yokkao, one of the recognizable brands in Muay Thai. For reference, Yokkao has a very small stable of active elite Thai fighters, including but not limited to Saenchai and Singdam Kiatmuu9, two legends of the sport. Additionally, Sakaengam was a Minimumweight (105lbs) Omnoi Stadium champion. Since the 1990s, the Omnoi Stadium title has been a much-sought-after belt. Sakaengam also beat Banluerit Siwatcharatchai last month to win the largest 112lbs tournament since 2017.

To the person that will review this article, I urge you to keep this page up. Thank you for reading and for your consideration.

PhanKS1505 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a Muay Thai fighter, not MMA, and as a WMC world champion he meets the notability criteria at WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article indicates he's a WMC world champion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure I read that somewhere, but I can't find it now (perhaps it was another fighter from the Jitmuangnon camp). Even the YOKKAO site describes him as "an up-and-coming elite stadium fighter making his way up". Therefore, I have struck my entire previous comment. It is still possible he might meet WP:GNG, but I need to rely on people with Thai language skills to provide those sources. Papaursa (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Siam Sport piece already cited in the article is an in-depth profile of the subject. Lots of press coverage,[55] most of which are match reports and analyses. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content Partners[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that footnote 1 is in depth, as is the Wall Street Journal article (footnote 2), as is the CNBC article (footnote 3), as is the USA Today article (footnote 4), the Fortune Magazine article (footnote 8), and that coverage of their buying other companies comes in in-depth articles ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the New York Times. A portion of the sources, yes, talk about things that could be considered run of the mill, like taking on the rights to CSI, though I would argue these are not simple notices. Beyond that though, things like the WSJ piece and the USA Today piece are, I think, pretty clear indicators of notability. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:
Ref 1: [56] For now, Kram, who is CEO of Content Partners, and Blume, who is CFO and chief operations officer, are not worried. “Our business is as busy as ever,” Kram says. “I think there will always be room for participants on the film side Fails WP:ORGIND as interview style article.
Ref 2 [57] Paywall.
Ref 3 Investing in Hollywood’s brightest stars This is a press-release: [58]. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:SIRS. Dependent.
Ref 4 [59] We've seen a large increase in inquiries in the last month or so" as the strike deadline loomed, says CEO Steven Kram. "Most of the inquiries we're receiving now are from writer-producers. This is an interview with the CEO of the company. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 5 [60] Kram told The Hollywood Reporter in 2007. 'We felt if we could provide an opportunity for diversification to participant holders, it would be warmly welcomed." Routine announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 6 [61] Profile page. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 7 [62] Announcement of partnership. The SPT team is among the best in the business and the ideal partner to handle international distribution of Revolution’s extensive catalog in the continually shifting global digital media landscape,” Revolution CEO Vince Totino said Thursday in a statement Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 8 Meet Content Partners: The investors who bought CSI Paywalled, but looks like a profile. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [63] “This proves the value of liquidity in an uncertain economic environment,” Mr. Kram added. He spoke recently by telephone of his company’s ability to use resources from its investors and lenders to buy an asset of the kind that is usually owned by large media companies. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 10 [64] “This represents an acquisition of a significant number of A-plus titles and A-plus management,” Kram said. “We believe there’s continued strong growth in the world of broadband, and so demand will continue to accelerate.” Another interview style report. Fails WP:ORGIND.

I can't access all the entries in the list as two are paywalled, but it is a brand new company, a very small private company with 7 people working for it. How can it be notable? All the references are routine announcements, churnalism and paid press-releases. There is news on it, because it is brand new company. No evidence has been presented as to why it is notable, and a paid editor has appeared to defend it. WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the in-depth review of references by scope_creep, none of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Atabay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Serv181920 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep it meet WP:MUSICBIO poor article is not a reason for Deletion Samat lib (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Almost all sources are about him launching his TV station and some are interviews. I think he'll probably be notable in the future, another case of TOOSOON I'm afraid. Fails NSINGER -Xclusivzik (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support Delete. Very little coverage found in a google search. Wiki page is mostly from one contributor. Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Shariati Varnosfaderani[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus doesn’t satisfy GNG. Furthermore WP:ANYBIO is also not satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that would support Varnosfaderani's notability and there is no indication that the article meets any notability guidelines (GNG and SNGs). Further, the article's creator is Ehsan6sha. The similarity of the user name and the name of the article's subject leads me to suspect a COI. Samsmachado (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotional page that makes no assertion of notability. FalconK (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Essentially an one-sentence unsourced stub. If sources are found, it should be written from scratch. Tone 11:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razjarnikovi[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation, and so is the Slovenian wiki article, so no help there. No sources located on a search, not even trivial mentions. Yes, it's from 1994 and Slovenian, but that doesn't mean we can simply ignore our policies about notability (let alone verification). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that these unsourced articles have sat for 9 years is a blight upon Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Chew[edit]

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

Plant-in advertisement for this person's training class. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has he had any major media appearances? Could be a minor celebrity, not sure from what I see here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crimson Thorn. Sandstein 09:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissection (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Awesome Christian metal band, but I am afraid this album is not notable. Tagged for notability since 2013. The article is unsourced. During a Google search I couldn't found any reliable sources (only the standard junk like metal archives, discogs, genius, spirit of metal, download links, retail sites, blogs...) Most of the search results are either trivial mentions in context of the band, reviews of their album titled "Legacy of Dissection" but even that's rare, and album reviews from the Swedish band Dissection, which is notable. (Crimson Thorn is notable as well but this album isn't.) No evidence of notability. A redirect is all this is worth. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability per WP:NALBUM. Would be best served as a redirect to the artist's page ~RAM (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Celestina007 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Duncan079 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crimson Thorn: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ActivMedia Robotics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, the page outlines their corporate history and not much of notoriety. Few of the sources provide significant coverage. Google News has no articles for this company. ~RAM (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2006-07 ✓ Keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was suggested for deletion due to a lack of notoriety. The sources that are there are mainly primary in nature, including a few books and articles where the founder(s) was the primary author. The one article in a true secondary news source was simply a mention as an employee was quoted on an unrelated matter - and had nothing to do with the company. The rest of the sources seem to be routine press releases in industry websites. ~RAM (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect: The previous AfD discussion was a long time before the current WP:NCORP norms, which are more challenging. I added a couple of references which might contribute towards current WP:CORPDEPTH standards (e.g. the 2017 Robotics Business Review article), though these are somewhat driven by the announcements of successive takeovers. There is also the 2010 NYT item containing a brief quotation from this company in the context of a broader sector review, which again is not enough for current standards here. Overall, I think there is not enough to demonstrate attained notability. A redirect to Omron (and perhaps a selective merge, though it might result in an undue imbalance to that article) might be an option. AllyD (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taly and Russ Johnson[edit]

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

Unsourced (one is email list, the other one is dead). Found a brief mention on ASU's film festival (https://asuartmuseum.asu.edu/content/fourth-annual-arizona-state-university-art-museum-short-film-and-video-festival), but otherwise can't find anything. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Extremely poorly sourced and seems to be promotional, possibly self-written. Coreykai (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Goel[edit]

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

Non notable author with no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. Sources like the Hans India, The Statesman, and Mid-day seem to be either PR or paid pieces. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has written some books and is also sourced which I have already put. According to me page should be kept.--WikiPanti (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPanti, the article is filled with primary and self published websites and the third party references you have cited are paid ones and do not help to establish notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao: Sources seem to be good and along with GoodReads are also sourced.--WikiPanti (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our author notability guidelines with adequate reviews of work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the surface this looks legit but digging into the sources show no independent coverage. This is brand sponsored content (aka SEO spam) and the Statesman piece is an inspo hub piece, which is user submitted spam and it appears the rest of the sources are based on these two which indicates a PR campaign and not actual independent journalism. Praxidicae (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable because he has written 12 novels. We can add tag of references.--WikiPanti (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, and I mean quite literally, anyone can write 12 novels. It doesn't make them notable. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:AUTHOR, prolific does not equate to wikinotability, Goel's works do not appear to be held in any libraries(?) which does not bode well, wikiuseable reviews not found. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himjyoti Talukdar[edit]

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

It seems that this film director is not notable.His role should be mentioned in the articles of his movie Calender. From the history of edits, it appears that the person have written or added to that article about himself. Autobiography should be strongly discouraged. Iamudit (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on procedural grounds. The nominator created this AfD only a couple of hours after prodding it, even though no one had objected to the prod. After nearly a month at AfD no one has come to defend this article, and the only edits to the article since the nomination have been me removing the prod (which I only did because of the open AfD) and Citation bot fixing apostrophes. I think we can safely delete this as uncontroversial. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:GNG notability by having significant coverage. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER[reply]
Delete - The sources are spam, interviews, or notes of accolades his films have received; none of the coverage meets the threshold of GNG or FILMBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Iranian Television (US)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scope creep's concerns about the sources have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorit Ungar Black[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates a passing of our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources appear to be reliable, and she appears to be notable in her particular field. I also find her age relative to her achievements and activities to be remarkable. There is enough here for an encyclopedia article in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you always vote keep. How can she be notable, when the majority of the references are profile pages, one is a press-release and one is an interview. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY secondary source amongst the lot of them. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Gables, California[edit]

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

I can find out essentially nothing concrete about this place, using either spelling. Every GHit/GBook hit is either a name drop or clickbait. Topos show a very small scattering of buildings which could be almost anything; later ones show a larger scattering which is consistent with the GMap aerial, showing the ruins of a few widely scattered buildings. The whole area is absolutely barren except for a rather odd grid of what could be roads plowed across the area. I just can't see how this could be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Durham calls this a locality and cites only the topo map, which does not indicate a notable community. Irresponsible misrepresenation of sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name was clearly applied to something, since a lot of newspaper real estate listings come up for "the Imperial Gables area" and the like, but there's no evidence that something was a community. For that matter, there's not a lot of evidence for what exactly it was at all, and it's a little hard to have an article without more clarity as to what your subject actually is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 01:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvve[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No sources in the article. WP:BEFORE showed promos, directory listings, interviews with actors, etc, but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the film) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference in the article, a review from Rediff which is a full review in a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the alleged review is not even about just this film. That is not the level of sourcing we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the review is just of this particular film. That said, it may not be sufficient to pass WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - should really have more than one review from a WP:RS to pass the guidelines Spiderone 14:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Mayagadu[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No sources in the article. WP:BEFORE showed promos, directory listings, interviews with actors, etc, but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject (the film) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is long past time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this completely fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 10:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not meet WP:GNG at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus has tended towards the arguments put forward by Missvain. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kislay Pandey[edit]

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Not seeing anything that would merit overturning the previous AfD. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The previous AfD was in 2016 and most events/sources are post 2016, this is not a case of "overturning the previous AfD". --John B123 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: quantity of sources doesn't inform a conversation about GNG very much. Which sources did you find were independent of the topic (not vanity press)? VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference. He was a part of major cases of India related to DHFL and Yes Bank scams so may be he is notable ( i read it in one of the articles i found) . Rest your senior and know it better. i am a learner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK1313 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-supported and sourced encyclopedia article on what appears to be a notable figure in his field in his country.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources here establish him as notable at the least, and generally accepted as a "good" laywer in India. I think we should improve rather then delete. Arsonxists (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edited the article to make it look more good as suggested by User:Arsonxists . let me know your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK1313 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed all the sources in the article and they are dripping of promotional puff pieces. I then did the usual Google deep dive and I found nothing outside of the already used rather promotional pieces. Sadly, some of these Indian news publications tend to take paid content and don't have to disclose it, and the majority of the content I found looks just like that. Being a good lawyer doesn't get you a Wikipedia article, neutral coverage in reliable secondary source does. The submitted photo of the subject wielding his brass knuckles of gold rings made this review of this AfD worth it. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Missvain. I also had a look at the sources and concur that they are promotional rather than independent content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for smelling of WP:SPONSORED sources. Of the citations that I was able to access not one had a credited author. Business Today, Deccan Chronicle, Asian Age, TSG credits "Our Correspondent", and NewsX says it's "Newsx Bureau". That, and the some of the same sources are cited 2-4 times. Without reliable, independent and broad coverage the article fails WP:ANYBIO. I smell "YourWikipediaBio.com" at work.Blue Riband► 00:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A great many non-notable lawyers play a role in highly notable cases. I am not seeing sources that would give me any confidence that this is a subject of encyclopedic importance. BD2412 T 00:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is now a clear consensus that the sources cited in support of this article fall short of providing the independent, reliable, and substantial content necessary to support the existence of an article. No prejudice against restoring to draft for further investigation and development of sources. BD2412 T 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleisha Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Actress. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 decided that this recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD should come back here for a second visit. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I noted at the DRV I'm of the opinion that the article was WP:G4 eligible as a minimal rewrite of a previously deleted article, but there were new sources added and I don't think they show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SportingFlyer, I've added some new sources from jet magazine and the New york times to be a significant source for her acting career. Check the article if you're intrested. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is just name-checked in both of those articles, those sources are far away from being WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But these are still undeniable reliable sources that is used for her acting career which is a part of GNg. and the rotten tomatoes source is Signifcant coverage. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Actresses have rather high notability but fails WP:GNG. ~Cupper (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Actress passes guideline one of WP:NACTOR, Having significant roles in Blue's Clues and Are We There Yet and It's sequel. And the article of the actress has multiple reliable references to support and verify her acting career. And she fits criteria two of WP:GNG as a result of passing WP:NACTOR. ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." And there are multiple independent sources mention on the article for WP:GNG. You can't just pint out the significan t coverage clasue without pinting out the others. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources which have been added do not demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guideline:

[65] includes the subject in a list of people who were born on a certain day. It isn't significant coverage and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source.
[66] is a book which has "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" - it's therefore a copy of the deleted Wikipedia article which someone will print on demand. It's not a usable source.
[67] is from a site which offers mass-produced clickbait pages about celebrities. It doesn't look like a reliable source. It claims she is worth several million dollars, which seems rather unlikely.
[68] is a catalogue entry in the Library of Congress, it's not significant coverage.
[69] is the subject's biography on Rotten Tomatoes. I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent.
[70] presents a list of brief biographies of people who were in the film School of Rock. The subject appears last in the list (at #14) and it doesn't represent significant coverage.
[71] namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
[72] also namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
[73] is a student testimonial by Aleisha Allen at a university. Even if we take it on trust that it's the same person it's not independent because the subject wrote it.
[74] says that Aleisha L Allen is a fee based instructor at a university. Not significant coverage.
[75] is a directory entry for an Aleisha L Allen. Not significant coverage.
[76] is IMDB, which isn't a reliable source.

WP:NACTOR is not a substitute for the general notability guideline. From WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Hut 8.5 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Hut 8.5, How would you suggest I fix the article per WP:Improve the junk since you so strongly opinionated and tenacious on deleting it? How's a entire magazine talking about the movie and mentioning the actors of the movie not significant coverage? I think You're thinking too harsh on these sources. And the subject studied at columbia university and if you think that's not signifant coverage you can contact the person at their phone number. It's pretty difficult to find full on articles about the actress that has stepped away from the acting limelight, but that doesn't completly justify complete article completion. And your criteria of significant coverage is debatable at best see Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required where it says "In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources". And from the policy WP:BIO it says and i quote " Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." It supports the content of her being pathologist and is good source to be used in the personal life section. And guideline one of WP:ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The actress has been nominated three times for awards one of them being an individual award for her Co-starring role in Are We There Yet. And she has had significant roles in the field of television and movies being a main character on Blue's Clues for 130 episodes, Co-starring in are we there yet and it's sequel. And WP:NACTOR is the actor/entertainer extentsion of WP:BIO designated for actors because said policy is too broad. And with significant coverage the coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Are expecting an entire article on the person? The Jet magazine article mention her a good couple of times and has her and her fellow cast members of are we there yet on the cover. And I used the sources to substantiate certain parts of th article such as the first source I used to confirm her birthday, the 8th source I used to confirm her appearance in the film. And using opinionated sentences like "and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source."and "I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent." is not helping your side of the arugument. Even so that source was created this year when the current wikipedia article was a redirect. these are speculations that doesn't justify the credibility of said sources. Source 1. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted passing NACTOR does not necessarily make someone notable. NACTOR is supposed to indicate that someone is likely to be notable and that sources passing the GNG are likely to exist. If sources meeting the GNG do not in fact exist then a subject which passes NACTOR can still be deleted. I'm not hugely surprised that someone who barely passes NACTOR on the basis of a small number of roles as a child actor (one of them voice only) does not meet the GNG. American actors who were active recently are exactly the kind of people who would receive media coverage if significant. I'd be willing to give more leeway if the subject was one where suitable sources may not be accessible, but that's not the case here. The subject doesn't meet the ANYBIO test as there's only one individual award nomination and even if she did ANYBIO falls into the same category as NACTOR.

The GNG does not require that every source meets the standard of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, but there must be some sources which do. I don't think any of the sources in the article qualifies, for the reasons I gave above. Even you seem to have conceded that it isn't possible to find suitable sources ("pretty difficult to find full on articles"). To meet the GNG sources need to do much more than "mention her a good couple of times" or "confirm her appearance in the film". Hut 8.5 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources aren't great, but probably at the GNG bar. One source in particular is really good and detailed, but reliability is questionable (biography today). I think Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable? Certainly meets the first prong of WP:NACTOR so keep. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which of the sources presented do you think meet GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes appears to be considered reliable WP:ROTTEN and the coverage, while cursory, isn't trivial. [77] is also terse, but reliable. [78] is quite detailed, but I've no clue how reliable it is. As I said, probably at the GNG bar. Plus meets a SNG. So a keep IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This whole article never should have been recreated. Not withstanding its clear and present G4 eligibility, the article makes no credible claim of significance for its actress and fails spectacularly to establish any notability whatsoever. Of the sources given the first only definitively proves show was born on the 28th of April, the second goes to a book which according to to google's preview tool looks very much so to be based on Wikipedia, which would disqualify it as a reliable source since editors can not cite Wikipedia. Married Biography, the third source, looks to be an entirely fan run cite since the overwhelming majority of the articles appear to have been created by Olivia Clarke, but there is absolutely no about us page to lend credence as to the site's reliability. The library of congress citation provides no information to support the claim that she was born in a specific location or that those are her parents. The rotten tomatoes link is sound, but on closer inspection appears to be very closely worded to this article - enough perhaps, to raise eyebrows (although I begrudgingly admit that there are only so many ways you can say something before it all starts to sound the same). The Entertainment weekly citation supports that she was in best man but does not include any mention of the show out of the box despite the apparent attempt to use this source to verify that fact, making its use misleading. The Jet source provides no information whatsoever, it just lists her as a cast member which is a far cry from proving a usefully source, and as it is the reference doesn't actually highlight the actress, it highlights her male co-star, suggestion a desperate attempt to artificially inflate the number of sources in this article at the expense of the quality of the sources. The New York Times article requires a subscription to read (according to my browser) which means any use it may have in supporting is severely offset by the fact that I can not read it, and if I can't I'm guessing others can not either. The PACE source is a student testimonial, which reads as being promotional, however the source only covers the PACE graduation and makes no mention of Columbia university, which again is misleading since sources at the end of the sentence should cover all applicable information unless noted otherwise. Source 12 and 13 are youtube and imbd, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Collectively, then, the article reduces itself to "she is a former child actor with two roles of note now working as a speech therapist in new york" which passes none of the criteria set forth at WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF, which in my mind then begs the question...why do we need to have an afd when A7 and G4 should clearly and unmistakably apply here? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because A) as shown at DRV, this doesn't meet either A7 or G4 and B) she clearly meets WP:NACTOR (GNG is more debatable, my arguments are above). Are you claiming she didn't have "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."? If so, is that because she didn't have significant roles or because the productions weren't notable? I can't tell what your argument is wrt NACTOR. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good improvements have been made to the article since AfD nomination. I see nothing wrong with notability or sources used.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I agree that they pass WP:NACTOR, it's just barely. And when the SN is a barely pass (like a football player who plays in a single game), then GNG comes more into play. And in this instance, they clearly don't pass WP:GNG, as ably demonstrated by Hut.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Onel5969 So being in 130 episodes(6 seasons) of blue's clues as a major role and co-starring in Are We There Yet and Are We Done Yet? is barely passing the WP:NACTOR bar? You're leaning on GNG specifcally the significant sources section way too heavily. GNG is mostly in place as a testament to partially determine notability. Notability comes down to multiple factors such as significant roles which is very presentt and the award nominations a actor recives, but nonetheless there is many to attribute to notablity and GNG is not the sole determining factor if x actor has a broad enough notablity to recieve a page, which would make the deletion process extremly flawed. You should aslo look at WP:Significant coverage not required because significant cover regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources which I have provided and I have found another significant source from TMZ. And most biography pages on the enclyopedia are made based off of the notability of the subject , not how many primary and significant sources you can find on the subject, Don't get me wrong, you need them though. And you also you have to remember Notability is not a level playing field, the amount of Significant coverage is not the only that determines if a page stays or not, Because for some biographies minimum could be just one or two while other will need several. The significant source that is is the rotten tomatoes source I used per WP:ROTTEN. And on top of that reliable sources are present at the article to demostrate verifiablitly on certain content such as certain movei roles and early acting career which is part of GNG clause. Hut 8.5 only attempted to rebutt the signifcant source claim that I made which I pointed out the holes in side of the arguement with my rebuttal. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here passes muster. There is no significant coverage presented here - nor in my searches online - covering her in reliable secondary sources except mentions of "where are they now" type coverage for School of Rock, celeb junk birthday sites and Just Jared Kids and a Rotten Tomatoes bio that reads like an Imdb entry. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, no one is going to convince me playing a table on Blues Clues is enough to get you an entry on Wikipedia. I don't know much about that show (in fact, I just recently learned Blue is a female while watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade...who knew

) but, I looked at the Blues Clues article and using that as an argument is silly, when most of the other re-occurring characters in that show don't even have articles about the actors. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not coming close to meeting WP:NACTOR nor does she meet WP:NACADEMIC as a speech pathologist. Blue Riband► 00:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the arguments above. Kolma8 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5, per nom and Missvain as well as others Spiderone 19:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Deenway Montessori School[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT), lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. A nice, perfectly normal school, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the "Oh, it's run of the mill!" argument really doesn't change things, it does look like the sources here are promotional and non-independent. Arsonxists (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a school takes children ages 14-18 it is almost never notable, and nothing about this school indicates and exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Star7924 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robin Hood in popular culture#Books. Sandstein 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin: Lady of Legend[edit]

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

Non-notable book that was a semifinalist in a minor Amazon contest. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I agree. It is exceptionally obvious that there is only one source, and only barely won a small Amazon award, and those are really the only things that establish notability onto the article. Arsonxists (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it'd won the award it would be decent towards establishing notability since the ABNAs did receive a moderate amount of coverage while they were running, but being one of the finalists or semifinalists wouldn't be able to establish notability. Especially as there were typically about 50 semifinalists in any given year, give or take a few dropping out or otherwise being disqualified. It's not nothing, but it's definitely not anything that Wikipedia would care about. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slight tweak - in the beginning there were about 100 semifinalists, in the final year 25, per the Wikipedia article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also piles up the fact that this is one of the only books that won that award to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsonxists (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't win, it was just a semifinalist. In any case, the award itself has received coverage but the books typically don't outside of that. It's why I'd say that it would probably count towards notability but wouldn't be enough to establish notability on its own, assuming that we were talking about the person(s) who won for that year. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's been some mild discussion about this in some academic sources, but not enough to pass NBOOK. It's enough to where it does warrant a mention at Robin Hood in popular culture at the very least. It's already mentioned there, so I suppose there could be a redirect if anyone thinks that we should keep the history intact. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robin Hood in popular culture, per ReaderofthePack. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This was previously prodded by User:TTN for failing GNG and deprodded by User:KingSkyLord with no rationale. I concur that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, also as per WP:PLOT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no sources. Not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, by 5 kilometers. Arsonxists (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry about that if I ever did that. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable character that seems to have only ever appeared in a single issue. There is not a single reliable source being used here, and I am unable to find any with searches. Too minor of a character (and too generic of a name) to be useful as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very minor character. No sources found that could pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the coverage? Dark knight 2149 00:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Magic in Harry Potter to a limited extent, focusing on real-world and sourced information rather than plot summary. Sandstein 08:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has, since it's been reinstated, had none of its issues fixed, and likely won't be able to: it reads much like a list, doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N), and directly violates the WP:PLOT policy. Because its essentially impossible to frame this article's contents in a real-world perspective, it belongs on the Harry Potter wiki (see MOS:INUNIVERSE). This has been brought up before, and the promise that the article would be revised A) has not been fulfilled; and, B) cannot be fulfilled. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions. Sources brought up in the last AfD were weak, in passing and almost entirely focused on plot.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a Fandom page. Unsourced, written like it's on a depository of information, and about something that doesn't seem to go well on a website like Wikipedia. It's also just a list, and they could all be summed up in one sentence. Per WP:WPINWA, I think it really belongs on the Harry Potter Wiki on Fandom. Arsonxists (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep/merge per my my previous !votes ... I'm quite OK with single-sentence descriptors of the potions *somewhere* but I'm not OK with broken links. I'm getting more and more meh about this as time goes on. It's worth noting though that the potions section in Magic in Harry Potter is about the Hogwarts subject, not necessarily the actual potions. Graham87 06:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly delete, the only one sufficiently notable for its own section somewhere is the Polyjuice Potion. The problem is I'm not sure where to put that information in a different article. El Millo (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a disruptive re-nomination per WP:DELAFD, being a pointy spinoff from the current RfA. The nomination's claim that work is impossible is blatantly false. For example, I recently added a relevant photograph. This was taken in the real world where Potter re-enactment and memorabilia is a billion dollar business – there are entire shops that sell nothing else. And there is extensive literary analysis of the potions in works such as Literary Allusion in Harry Potter. I have made a start on identifying and using such sources but it's a thankless task while the nay-sayers who complain about no effort, don't do any work themselves. The applicable policy here is WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." As this is clearly possible then that's what we should do. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is sourcing that would support a distinct article on this topic. This article, however, is far from it. So in the end I come out a bit neutral on whether appropriate coverage of this topic is best achieved through a separate article or through coverage as part of a larger topic (i.e. Magic in Harry Potter). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic in Harry Potter per the same rationale I used in the last AFD. The descriptions for every entry here are just in-universe plot summaries, and the sources that are being used to support that information is also just plot summaries. Nothing has changed since the last AFD to convince me that this is a justified spinout article, rather than just having the overall concept of potions in the franchise covered in the main article on magic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to have two sections titled Potions at Magic in Harry Potter: one a section for actual potions, and the other one as a subsection of Subjects at Hogwarts, which is the one that currently exists. We could either merge some of the information in this article to a section there, or draftify in order to make it better, if Barkeep49 is right in that there is enough sourcing for it. El Millo (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic in Harry Potter and consolidate the paragraphs to one-two sentence bullet points. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep edit history not picky if this winds up a redirect or not. In terms of Wikipedia practice, I would ask which is better: 1) Copy-and-paste this into another article and replace it with a redirect, 2) redirect and make sure target had at least a summary of what is in the page, knowing that over time that "summary" may expand and expand until someone decides it's time to split the page, 3) same as 2 but "guard-dog" (WP:OWN) the target to make sure excessive expansion doesn't happen, 4) leave things the way they are (keep), or 5) delete the page, possibly replacing it with a redirect. I'm not sure which will be best in the long run, those are the options on the table. I'm against option 5. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical note in 2005, this was split off from Magical objects in Harry Potter with the edit summary "splitting of Potions section, article too long".[79] The "magical objects" page is several times longer now than it was 15 years ago. There are several other pages on the Fictional universe line of Template:Harry Potter. Should all of them, save those with large out-of-universe/independent-source coverage, be removed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidwr: Not quite ... I started the current iteration in 2015 from text that had been removed from magical objects in Harry Potter without being moved anywhere else; See this discussion. If I'd had my time again I might've just put the content back there and moved the page to a more inclusive title like "Potions and magical objects in Harry Potter" ... that could still be a possibility now. Graham87 04:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Potions could qualify as magical objects of sorts. To include them as part of the title would be to give them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT compared with the rest of the article. El Millo (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah ... was just thinking maybe a name change to something like "magical items in Harry potter" would solve both problems. Graham87 04:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic in Harry Potter, per my comments in the last AfD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I think, like Andrew Davidson and contrary to the nomination, that this article indeed can be improved. In a very preliminary search I did not see an encompassing treatment of potions as a group yet, but e.g. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy, The Riddles of Harry Potter and Literary Allusion in Harry Potter together (with the primary sources) probably have enough material for a stand-alone article on the love potion in Harry Potter alone, though probably it is better off in this list here. Other potions have shorter appearances in secondary sources. So the remaining question is, would the topic better be treated stand-alone, or in expanding the section of Magic in Harry Potter. As that is already large, I would at this time prefer stand-alone. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many secondary sources detailing potions as shown here and in previous deletion discussions, so fullfilling WP:GNG should not be a problem. I find WP:ALLPLOT the more serious objection, and I think the article as it is now fails that guideline. But I think if one is willing to spend the time to look for the indivdual potions, there's enough non-plot information in secondary sources out there. I've already made that point for the love potion with the three sources above. The Ravenclaw Chronicles adds more analysis for that, and then goes on to talk about real-world paralells and ethical implications of the Veritaserum. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy talks about the philosophical questions raised by the existence of the Polyjuice Potion. That's as far as I have looked so far. So again, I think the article can be improved to a point to fulfull both WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT. If it should rather be seen as a list or an article is another question. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Hogwarts' subject of potions also within the scope of this article, as the introduction suggests? Then here's another paper about the real-world impact of the fictional subject: Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World Daranios (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't, that it covered in full in Magic in Harry Potter#Potions. El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arsonxists ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge I wouldn't object to deletion, but there appears to be a growing consensus to at least preserve the history, if not some of the content. This subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG because it is largely unsourced or cited to primary/officially licensed sources. Similarly, those primary sources only cover this in-universe, so there is nothing to write here that isn't WP:JUSTPLOT, which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. I do see a decent redirect/merge target as a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic in Harry Potter. There are some pieces that seem interesting, but having just potions in a Wikipedia page would not be ideal. As Arsonxists already mentioned, it seems like it belongs to a Fandom wiki more so than a General Wikipedia page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim to Magic in Harry Potter. Unnecessary CFORK split and it will easily fit into and improve the target article. // Timothy :: talk 08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Though the current proposed target article for merging is also in dire need of either deletion or massive rescue effort, this page in particular lacks the necessary coverage in reliable sources to currently need an article. There is no particular benefit whatsoever to retaining this content, as nobody has shown anything that justifies more than a few sentence summary elsewhere. TTN (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The delete !votes so far have ignored the existence of the secondary sources about the subject, those already in the article, as well as those suggested here, and in previous deletion discussions - almost all of which, by the way, were not yet existant at the time of the first deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've stated multiple times that you disregard GNG's need for per-source significant coverage, and you have not provided anything significant covering the potions of the fictional universe as a whole. You have not provided any argument as to why this page in particular needs to exist. You've just stated a preference for it over attempting to improve what can be called the parent article and then later splitting it back out should there be too much weight on the topic. If those sources even count as significant coverage, there is no reason why the one or two paragraphs the topic deserves in Magic in Harry Potter (assuming that can be salvaged) cannot cover them. One or two specific potions being covered to some extent does not provide sufficient reason to have an entire article on the subject. TTN (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't see a need for per-source significant coverage, as compared to just overall significant coverage, that's true. If this is stated somewhere in WP:GNG, rather than being an opinion about WP:GNG, please point me there. I don't at all think that I am disregarding WP:GNG in total for two reasons:

First let's assume for the sake of the argument, that love potion, Veritaserum and Polyjuice potion in Harry Potter each had coverage in secondary sources (as has been shown above/previously), but not enough to have a separate article each. In such a case WP:GNG suggests: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Or in this case: create a parent article like "Potions in Harry Potter". Now I don't say that merging to Magic in Harry Potter could not also be a good solution, though I am not convinced it would be the best one. But I do think that WP:GNG does not support wholesale deletion in such a case (with loss of all the secondary sources).

Second, the topic "Potions in Harry Potter" is discussed at some length e.g. in The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter and A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World as found by Cunard. Of course there the majority - though not all - of the material is plot-summary. But other secondary sources like "Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World" and others provide the relevant real-world additions. Taking these together to create a reasonalbe stand-alone article again in my opinion is not disregarding WP:GNG but looking at why we have these requirements in the first place. Daranios (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's flexibility in that wording, I can only say you're blatantly wrong. It very clearly supplies examples of two specific sources and makes no mention of some nebulous overall coverage, allowing the combination of several trivial sources to equal one good source or some such. While no guideline is set in stone, I take that as a very strange interpretation not conforming to anything stated in it. And that basically covers the rest of your argument. There is no "taking these together" when accounting for GNG. There are good sources and poor sources. Poor sources may have some contextual utility in the case that there are plenty of good sources, but poor sources on their own do not make for an article that meets GNG. TTN (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Ahmed (philosopher)[edit]

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

The article, sourced mainly from Varsity, Cambridge University's student-run newspaper, presents Ahmed's involvement in the freedom of speech debate at his institution. Since coverage of only one event, here in a better source by The Times, does not automatically lead to notability (WP:E1), I checked whether he met WP:NACADEMIC. Currently, I think his academic record does not meet this guideline. He might well become notable in the future, e.g. by being elected to a named chair. For the time being, it's just his intervention in the freedom of speech debate. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I see no reason to keep this article; a search of Ahmed brings up this one event and the fact that he's a member of the Cambridge faculty. He also appears to not meet N:ACADEMIC. — Theologus (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for passing WP:Prof#C1: GS cites just acceptable for low cited field of philosophy. Most of his publications are single-author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. I just added six reviews of three books to the article. Weak because two of them are edited volumes rather than monographs. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is also borderline but Cambridge doesn't hire people, even as readers, without a basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

A reader at Cambridge is comparable to a full professor at a good US university (not that either, just by itself, would confer notability under WP:Prof). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

- Make that eight reviews of four books, two of them authored works. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, look at @Xxanthippe:'s WP:Prof#C1: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Ahmed is what you might call an Applied Philosopher. He has in one stroke created an entirely new discipline. Ye ordinary armchair philosopher on this forum might disagree. And that's to be expected. Magnovvig (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig: Would you dial down the rhetoric? Last time I checked, name calling was not a good sign for solid arguments at AfD. I'm sorry your article was nominated for deletion. Seeing that we have delete and weak keep !votes, I don't think the case is as obvious as you wish it was. Let's return to the sources of which you don't seem to cite any in your comment. You claim that the subject has "in one stroke created an entirely new discipline". The way you put it he must be a figure like Kant or Wittgenstein, which would be fine by me if you just cited some professional sources backing this up. I'm sure they exist though, so do link them in this discussion. Since the only thing we have to assert his influence is your comment, let's have a look at the GS citations referred to by @Xxanthippe:: the subject is cited 428 times. For reference, other notable Cambridge philosophers who have no claim to have "created an entire discipline": Rae Langton 4017, Huw Price 6220, Alexander Bird 5781. They are the standard he needs to demonstrably reach. Perhaps his sub-field is low on citations but you might now understand why I'm somewhat sceptical about the outsized claims you have made. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I see 4 reviews of 2 authored books, and additional reviews for edited volumes. That's marginal for WP:NAUTHOR. Support from progress towards WP:NPROF C1 helps tip towards keep. I don't see evidence that he's created an entire discipline, but that's not required for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Geology, California Division of Mines and (1886). Report of the State Geologist. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.

[2] The Statistician and Economist: 1st-23d Issue 1876-1905/06. L.P. McCarty. 1878.

[1]

[2]