Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 15	December 17 >

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) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Age International University[edit]

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

no such thing. Purely imaginary. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG. Not all diploma mills are notable. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, redirect to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education#N as this would continue to provide useful information re the credibility of degrees purchased from this organisation. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: New Age International Publishers is currently redirected to the "University" article, but this identification may be incorrect. I have started a discussion on that at Talk:New Age International Publishers. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete. This is not a serious entity nor an encyclopedic one. And the Principality of Seborga officially states on their website that they are not involved in any universities and that any study grants given in the name of / recognized by the Principality of Seborga are fake (see point 3C here). --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it exists at all, non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure crap. There's nothing that suggests this is a notable organization (just self-references), and evidence above that it's not (even a micronation disowns it, indirectly). There is something to Fayenatic london suggestion of a redirect; there is some value in a search result making clear this is "pure crap". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan K. Stout[edit]

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

This article was written nearly exclusively by single purpose accounts and it shows. The writing is largely unverified and mostly unverifiable (contra BLP) and reeks of promotionalism. This alone would be a justification to delete. However, even if you feel like that could be fixed through editing (and the use of some considerably less than RS sourcing to try and verify) it doesn't fix the fact that he also doesn't appear to be a notable journalist. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stout is a local level journalist who has not gotten the level of notice that would rise to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while the article has been edited by several accounts that might be him or his associates, it has also been edited by ordinary Wikipedians. No !vote on the matter. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally used the word written. So yes it's been edited by but basically all the substantive writing, with the exception of few hundred bytes by User:Gamble2Win who was active for a few months in 2012, was done by SPAs. The edits done by ordinary Wikipedians are of the cleanup and maintenance variety. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article nor google is showing me that the subject meets WP:BIO, google hits are mostly their work, not works about them. Jeepday (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:59, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Deming[edit]

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

Another person with a job article that does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. She's been profiled a few times as an investor, and that's really it. At best, WP:TOOSOON. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At Wikipedia, we could wait until a person is dead and then start with their obituaries, covering their entire life. We wouldn't have BLP problems then but the subject here might upset such a scheme, eh? She gets plenty of coverage in sources such as the FT and Sunday Times and it's not just about money. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Per cited WP:BIO lead, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note'—that is, remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. Woman venture capitalist marks all of those. Forbes ref Hmlarson (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Handily passes GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have enough independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG; sufficient independent sources covering her achievements. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed and I think we now have consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:47, 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. Fenix down (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maya García[edit]

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

Was up for AfD previously and kept. In my view, the subject currently does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. According to the Mexican League official website and Football-Lineups, she has not played a single minute of football. A Mexico-focused internet search yielded nothing. I think that it's time to revisit this one. Spiderone 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manly Fall, California[edit]

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

GNIS is the only citation and it says that Manly Fall was a Fall, not a community. No post office. GBooks has hits only for the now former waterfalls. Newspapers.com had one hit for a mining claim at that location. Note that Manly Fall no longer exists. Cxbrx (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant misrepresentation of the sole source, GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly was never a community if it was ever anything at all Spiderone 23:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorakuna Ituvanti Seva[edit]

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

This film is not yet released, and is not yet notable. According to WP:NFP and WP:NFF, this film does not merit its own article, as it has not yet been published and this articles references do not show notability, nor are they reliable and show a standard level of quality. Coreykai (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given most of the cast and crew are non-notable, the film may not meet WP:NFILM even after its release. --Ab207 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 17:07, 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 keep. Keeping for now to allow for improvement using other language resources, etc. We can always re-nominate for deletion if needed in the future, but hopefully not. Missvain (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ach. Brito[edit]

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

In order to establish notability, an article about an organization or company must meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a somewhat higher standard than WP:GNG; it requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article does not meet those criteria. The first reference provides nothing more than a directory entry: that does not qualify as "significant coverage." The second reference and the external links are authored by the company itself, meaning that they are not independent. WP:BEFORE reveals no other satisfactory sources that could be included. At the end of the day, this article contains no sources that would pass WP:ORGCRITE, much less the "multiple" sources required by that standard. Accordingly, the article should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be enough coverage in Portuguese language sources. Since i am not familiar with the language, i am not sure if these sources demonstrate notability[1][2][3][4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizal batliwala (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search does seem to bring up a good number of Portuguese-language references that appear reliable. I have also located this English article from 2011 that does a decent job of discussing the company in some detail. I think there is enough here for someone to attempt a rescue of the article instead of deleting it.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:11, 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) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since there appears to be some potential for saving this article, I listed it at WP:RSL. If no one steps in to rescue it within a week or two, I (the nominator) would suggest that deletion (or possibly draftification) would be appropriate. If someone can rescue it, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-soaps/portugal-soap-maker-still-cleaning-up-122-years-on-idUSTRE51J4A220090220 Coverage from that, and even Oprah Winfrey praised them [5]. Dream Focus 10:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the company named Ach Brito, Ach. Brito, or Claus Porto? Dream Focus 11:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Kendari[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Searching appeared to return only wiki mirrors. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - club does exist, see e.g. this, but they only appear to have played at a very low level, and lack of significant coverage means they fail GNG and are non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Snowman. Lennart97 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this club meets the agreed notability standards (i.e. passing WP:GNG or being eligible for a national cup (Piala Indonesia)) Spiderone 14:57, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mattam the Change[edit]

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

Short film doesn't meet WP:NFILM, would redirect to director, but they don't have a page either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This short film mentioned in the national newspaper The Hindu. Also selected to some festivals. So I think it passes WP:NFILM.(A2Z Pics (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete A mention in a paper does not meet WP:NFILM " significant coverage". There is nothing in the article suggesting it is notable. The There is not a foreign language page for the subject, my google search did not find anything notable. "finalist for Best Live-Action Short Film at the 2020 Flick Fair Film Festival does not seem notable. Jeepday (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't it satisfying WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 17:06, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Whitmore[edit]

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

Notability not established in secondary sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some significant coverage such as [6] and [7] (currently cited in the article). Her journals were considered significant enough to merit publication. Also, do you have access to the paper "Educating with Heart, Head, and Hands: Pestalozzianism, Women Seminaries, and the Spread of Progressive Ideas in Indian Territory." mentioned in the article? We should check this before envisioning deletion because coverage in scholarly journal is a particularly strong sign of notability. The same can be said about the book "Cultivating the Rosebuds : The Education of Women at the Cherokee Female Seminary": we need to know how much coverage of Whitmore is in there. Pichpich (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were sources covering the subject listed in the article, they were just badly formatted and mostly listed in the Bibliography rather than in the References section. I renamed the Bibliography section into Sources and cleaned it up a bit. In addition to the sources mentioned by Pichpich above, there are some others there as well. E.g. this book discusses Whitmore Goodale in detail on pp 31-33. The Bibliography/Sources section also lists an academic journal article[8]; the article sits behind a paywall but I would AGF this ref since all the other ones given there do check out. Overall, (even minus that journal ref) there is sufficient coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 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 keep. Consensus was that the article meets at least WP:HEY and the WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Berg[edit]

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

Non-notable politician whose only office was mayor of a city with 54k people. Only references are from local newspapers. If Berg is notable, then every mayor with coverage in the local news is also notable. Does not pass WP:NPOL. I am also nominating her husband's page, because he has even less of a claim to notability (mayor of the same city whose only reference is being mentioned in an article on Helen's death):

HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 18:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors at this level are not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can improve the articles. Corvallis is certainly a significant enough city that a mayor could get in the door if his or her article were substantially well-sourced, but it isn't large enough to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all of its mayors in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass — and while Helen does include a bit more content about specific aspects of her mayoralty than inadequate articles about mayors usually do, that means it's starting down the right path but doesn't mean it's reached the finish line. If all you've got for sourcing is two death announcements and her announcement of her retirement, all in the local media where coverage of mayors is simply expected to exist, then that's not enough in and of itself. And Alan's even worse, being cited only to a namecheck of his existence in his wife's death notice rather than any coverage about him, and offering literally none of the substantive content about his mayoralty (specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, etc.) that would required. The bar for mayoral notability is considerably higher than just being able to offer minimal verification that the person exists or existed as a mayor — it requires a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing, than either of these articles is actually attempting to show. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helen Will pass WP:GNG as sources are incorporated in the article. Corvallis, Oregon is not large enough for its mayor to be seen as automatically notable, but as Bearcat mentions can pass if it can be demonstrated that there is more than verification the subject served in office. Beyond the obituarites in the article, we have this oral history interview through Oregon State, the creation of an award in her honor as past president of the Oregon League of Cities and some picture of their charitable donations. --Enos733 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in which Helen is the speaker do not support notability — she has to be the subject that other people are speaking about in a source, not the person who's doing the speaking, for that source to support her notability. The creation of an award named after her is not a notability clincher if your source for that is the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, and not journalist-written news content about the award's creation in an actual media outlet. Making charitable donations is not a notability clincher if your source for that is a donation recipient's own self-published brochure about itself, and not journalist-written news content about the donation in an actual media outlet. The notability test isn't the things she's done, it's the amount of journalism that has or hasn't been done by the media to cover the things she's done. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A elected official is distinct from other biographies since there is a voluminous public record of their actions. What is needed for an entry for an elected mayor is to show that there is independent sourcing to indicate more that the subject served in office, so we can create a biography for a global audience. In this case, the sources I found create a full picture of who the subject was (and all of those sources, while may not count toward determining notability, go toward developing a portrait of the subject's life [and I will say the write up of the interview is an independent source that would count toward GNG]). From the sources (and other links), we know that the subject served as President of the Oregon League of Cities (and has subsequently been honored by the organization with an award named after them), donated large parcels for conservation, has their papers saved in the Oregon State archives, has a post office and a plaza in Corvallis named after the subject, and a partial record of the projects the subject worked on in office. --Enos733 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: the 2007–2008 bill to name a post office after her failed to pass the US Senate, and I don't see any evidence that they tried again later. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also distinct from other biographies because you should always be able to find local sources for local politicians, but all of those are considered routine. This is a small town and the only available information on her in the article is sourced directly from the small town, including the other articles posted above. We've consistently held that's not enough to be notable for an entry. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have done no such thing. Notability for corporations has a no-local-sources clause. General notability does not. It only requires that the sources be reliable, independent, and in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you and SportingFlyer are both partly right and partly wrong. Mayors don't always have to have nationalized coverage in order to be notable — that doesn't hurt, obviously, but the thing a mayor has to have to qualify for an article is not necessarily nationalized coverage per se, but sufficient coverage to write a genuinely substantial article about his or her political significance rather than just technical verification of his or her existence. Below the level of the mayor, however, for the likes of city councillors and school board trustees much more clearly nationalizing coverage is necessary, and even just getting a mayor over WP:GNG still requires a lot more than just the two or three death-notice hits from the local media that were the article's entire sourcing when it was first nominated. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, interviews are not independent or notability-supporting sources at all. It's not a question of determining the notability and reliability of the media outlet that's publishing the interview — an interview represents the subject speaking about herself in the first person, not independent analysis of her impact or importance by people independent of herself, which means it's subject to all the same issues as self-published content would be. So an interview can be used to verify stray biographical facts that aren't notability claims per se, such as the subject's birthdate or where they went to high school, but they don't count toward the process of determining whether the person is notable in the first place. It's not just a question of who's publishing the piece, it's also a question of who's doing the speaking in the piece. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually debatable, and WP:INTERVIEW explains the debate. The argument for is that reliable sources don't waste their time or page space doing long indepth interviews with people who aren't notable. So if they print the interview, they have taken note of the person, which is the point of Wikipedia:Notability, "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large ... from reliable and independent sources". --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source labeled as an interview has an introductory page with in-depth non-interview coverage of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helen, ~~neutral for Alan~~. Helen M. Berg has top citation count 277 on Google Scholar, but then dropping off (another 128-citation paper, "Effect of taurine on sarcoplasmic reticulum function and force in skinned fast‐twitch skeletal muscle fibres of the rat", appears to be by a different Australian researcher with the same name). However, under her earlier name, "Helen M. Lowry", she has another 107-citation paper and several more double-digit ones. All of these works appear to be on gender differences in statistical economics. Alan B. Berg has top citation count 500 (for a paper on forestry) but then again steeply dropping off. So both cases for WP:PROF#C1 are plausible but borderline, with Helen's looking stronger to me (because her well-cited works are multiple and her dropoff is less steep). We also have GNG-level in-depth coverage of Helen, beyond the routine coverage of her that we would expect from local newspapers from her terms in office, in the Oregon State Library "Women's Voices" exhibit and in an in-depth local newspaper obituary (not paid death notice), and in another news story about a city plaza being dedicated in her name plenty of material for an article. Obviously, mayor of Corvallis is not automatically notable per WP:NPOL, but that does not prevent notability through other criteria (WP:PROF or WP:GNG in this case), and I think she has that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have significantly expanded Helen's article based on the coverage already discussed in this AfD, two new national-level (non-Oregon) newspaper stories that quote her regarding two different challenges she was facing as mayor, and non-trivial non-local coverage of her in a journal article on religious politicians [9]. At this point the article is a lot more detailed than many, so I suspect any remaining objections to it can be classified as either misreading GNG as being about significance rather than availability of adequate sourcing, or misreading NPOL as denying notability to local politicians even when they pass GNG. I also learned through this expansion that her father and probably her second husband are notable, but of course this does not really add to her own notability. Still neutral on Alan. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't think she's notable. It's not a falsehood that we exclude mayors of small localities who have only received routine coverage. I see no non-routine coverage here, and WP:PROF is very marginal. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you compare the news coverage that you can find for Alan Berg vs Helen Berg you will see the true difference between routine and non-routine (I have searched and found almost nothing beyond the existence of a park named after him in which someone got murdered). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS delete Alan. With only one well-cited paper and no in-depth coverage that I could find, I don't see a case for either PROF or GNG. If the article on Helen is kept, we might consider a redirect from Alan to her. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to her coverage in the local small-town papers, the Oregonian (Portland-based) had an obituary for her. That her collected papers are held by Oregon State tends to indicate that Oregon State believes her to be notable. She has one paper [10] with a moderately high number of citations: I don't think it's enough for a pass of WP:NPROF C1, but it certainly doesn't detract from notability. (Edit conflict, overlapped with David Eppstein's response above.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helen Berg per the excellent work done by User:David Eppstein. --GRuban (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Helen per GNG, with some support from NPROF. Redirect Alan to subsection of Helen, with 1-2 sentences about him. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources don't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV rules from my perspective. HarrietsCharriot (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — HarrietsCharriot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.[reply]
Keep Helen and redirect Alan to a section or subsection in the article about Helen. I think Russ Woodroofe's summary is accurate. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, now seems to meet WP:GNG. Redirect Alan to Helen's article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 24 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) 15:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca (Pixar film)[edit]

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

This is an unreleased film, and does not satisfy

- film notability guidelines, which primarily apply to films that have been viewed and reviewed.
- notability guidelines for future films, which provide that unreleased films may be considered notable if production itself has been notable, and this article says nothing about production.
- general notability guidelines, because this article says nothing except that the film will be released.

This article has no independent reliable sources, only Twitter, which is not a reliable source, and a web site for the film.

This film was already the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca (2021 film), and nothing has changed. The previous deletion discussion was closed as Draftify, and the draft is at Draft:Luca (2021 film). This version of the article contains less information than the deleted article, and has been tagged for G4, but the nomination has not been acted on, so renominating for a deletion discussion. Since the draft already exists, this version of the article should be deleted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this should've been a speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article. We already have a draft on the subject and an article like this has been deleted before. El Millo (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and per speedy WP:G4. Also not the proper location of final article. After deletion consider adding a redirect to the same location as the redirect at Luca (2021 film) currently does, and tag as {{R avoided double redirect|Luca (2021 film)}}. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM. Might suggest salting the article until (and if) it passes the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if the naming needs tweaking. Covered in Variety [11], Entertainment Weekly [12], SF Chronicle [13], Cheddar [14]. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which has anything to do with the fact that Draft:Luca (2021 film) has precedence. Thus, this version should be deleted, and then it can be discussed if Draft is ready to be moved to mainspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G4 - Why does this keep getting created over and over again? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a discussion on my talk page about this. According to Starzoner, production has started due to there being footage to show at Investor's Week. I've asked them to find some more solid confirmation that production has started, but I wanted to throw this out there as a possible reason why this draft may have been put out there now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priority should be given to Draft:Luca (2021 film) (disclosure, I created the page). For example, this page shows that the first few images of the film are released, with images sourced from Pixar. Footage shown at the Disney Investors Day was not released online. Starzoner (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely – what ReaderofthePack or IHateAccounts state has no bearing on the fact that Draft:Luca (2021 film) has precedence and is the version that gets moved into mainspace if/when that is appropriate. So none of this changes the fact that this version that this AfD is about needs to be deleted, for several reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If somebody really wants the contents here kept, we could merge some of it into the draft. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no information here that isn't already in the draft. El Millo (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even more of a reason to speedy delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since even the creator says that priority should be given to the Draft and other reviews have determined there is no content to merge into the draft. If there is enough to truly show that the film's no longer in pre-production, then publish the draft. Note that a trailer doesn't necessarily mean that the equivalent of filming has started; it's possible for animation projects to have trailers created strictly for promotional purposes with none of that "footage" used in the film. -2pou (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge plot synopsis into draft page.★Trekker (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot synopsis is editorialized and the wording is too close to the source. El Millo (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a Pixar film, and Pixar has ultras, enthusiastic fans who support their studio without regard to film notability and neutral point of view. In this case, the ultras may be trying to race each other to get credit. The responsibility of the community is to enforce boring rules such as notability and neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely seems to be the case here. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the draft is much better done than this one. Considering a trailer was shown privately at the investor thing, the draft should get published very soon, and we won't be needing this one. I find it unlikely a person will search "Luca (Pixar film)" so a redirect would be unnecessary. Iamnoahflores (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 06:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but move draft to mainspace right away. It's time. Jikybebna (talk) 15:14, 24 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) 15:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annette, California[edit]

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

My guess is that this was once the Jenness Ranch, and that Annette was Mr. Jenness's wife or daughter, because it is abundantly clear from GMaps that this is and always was a ranch. If you "drive" by the place on Streetview you can see the cattle, and one of the later topos indicates the corral/loading facility which seems to be built to the latest scientific principles. Across the road from the house itself is the ruins of a barn, and that is what there is and mostly ever was to Annette, other than the 4th class post office somewhere on an earlier version of the premises. I also note that one of the earlier topos seeming labels every household in the larger area. Not a settlement beyond a single ranch. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just getting a name attached to a place is not enough to make it notable. This was not a settlement or community by any understanding of the words, and a 4th class postoffice does not change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 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) 18:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalanbayar Delgermaa[edit]

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

At first, this sounded impressive enough to be kept as probably notable: a silver medal at the Asian Speed Skating Championships, wow.

The problem is that "second" and "silver medal" also meant "last", as there were only two competitors at that distance, with Delgermaa ending 10 seconds behind the winner. Her times aren't really impressive either.[15]

This is a good example that competing at continental championships isn't always an indicator of excelling internationally or being at or near the top of the sport. Some championships, for whatever reason, get very low participation, with the strongest skaters not present (e.g. at the 1000m the same day, you get 3 Kazakh, 3 Koreans, and one way, way slower Indian skater: but no Chinese or Japanese, which are two of the top countries in women's speed skating[16]).

What is needed is evidence that WP:BIO is met, but I haven't been able to find good sources about her (non-database sources, that is). Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was not one of the best speed skater in the world, but she is an important person of the speed skating history of Mongolia. She broke 18 times a senior national record and became four times national champion. Mongolia is getting better and better in speed skating since the 2000s having an official ISU 400 metres speed skating rink and in a previous edition Mongolia won their first medal ever in speed skating at an international Games (Olympic Youth Olympics). Without people like Delgermaa, this wouldn't has happened. Because she was a main sportsperson in Mongolia, it's highly likely she had many coverage in Mongolian sources. However, there are no Mongolian secondary sources online, and also we don't have her name in Mongolian language. If you search for other Mongolian athletes, you couldn't find secondary sources as well. For instance Olympian Tsedenjavyn Lkhamjav (having an article in Mongolian). (I can't find ANY secondary source about speed skating in Mongolia. While the country is one of the few countries in Asia having an 400 metres ice skating rank, hosted international ISU competitions. There must be secondary speed skating sources, but not findable online). SportsOlympic (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let someone who has access to these hypothetical sources write the article? Speculating that there have to be sources won't help us. Fram (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - With hypothetical sources I mean the news sources of Mongolia. Not accessible online. Wikipedia shouldn't create a bias when we can't access the foreign sources, to just ignore/remove all the relevand information we do have. So we should also delete for that reason: List of Mongolian records in speed skating? And Mendbayryn Naratsetseg? That would be ridiculous. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't know whether the Mongolian media had any attention for their speed skaters or not. That's not creating a bias, that's following WP:V and WP:BIO. You seem to confuse the case of say, a Mongolian editor presenting offline sources which we accept on good faith (which would establish notability), and an editor claiming without evidence and without knowledge of the situation in the country that sources have to exist, which is not something which should simply be accepted. The WP:BURDEN is on you to present sources; it is impossible for me or anyone else to prove that no sources exist. Fram (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean in that case all articles about speed skating in Mongolia should be deleted as we don't have good secondary sources about speed skating in Mongolia. And yes, that would create a bias. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportsOlympic. She's important to her country's role in the sport. oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. All the national-level accomplishments might mean something in Mongolia, but that depends whether speed skating has a following there, and it often does not when the level is so low. Lots of sports are huge in some countries and negligible in many countries, for instance baseball. On the regional (Asian) scene she is clearly non-notable per Fram. Geschichte (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no readily available sources, but SportsOlympic makes a good point about the plausible reasons for that lack. There are plenty of records for the competition results. Most importantly to me, her prowess should have nothing to do with keeping an encyclopedic article - if that was the bar, we'd possibly not have an article for Eddie the Eagle.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if sources were actually found, rather than simply speculated about.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eddie the Eagle completed on the world stage. That's the difference. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As said above, finding these sources online is impossible, as internet don’t give access to the Mongolian sources of that era. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2:Speed skating is still at a very low level in Mongolia. As we don’t have access to older news sources, we can take a look at the recent sourcing. Almost all main news sources are in the native language (see here). When taking a look at the few English language Mongolian news sources the coverage of speed skating is good, including writing about national championships. At montsame.mn see for instance: here and more examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. At the other English speaking main news outlet news.mn has good coverage, three examples: 1, 2, 3. So even while the level is so low in Mongolia: even the main Mongolian news sources are writing about it; unfortunately we don’t have access to the older sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SportsOlympic. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:29, 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) 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a solid argument above except it's not a valid argument. There is two profile pages and dead link and that are insufficient to determine if the persons even exists. It completely invalidates WP:V and WP:BIO. It is a WP:BLP after all. Machine generated profiles are entirely unsuitable. The best you could probably do here, is to park it in Draft until a suitable expert in the language can do a thorough search. But at the moment the argument for keep hasn't been made. What will happen is it will remain in a broken state. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning is not correct: "There is two profile pages and dead link and that are insufficient to determine if the persons even exists." --> (1) there are no dead links and (2) enough sources that shows she exists. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:35, 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) 16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this completely fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG; not one source has been brought forward showing in-depth coverage Spiderone 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and comment @Spiderone: Why adding the word “completely”? Did you read my reasoning above that the Mongolian sources of that era are not available online; but showed it’s highly likely these sources exist. To demonstrate this further I added a non-Asian sources writing about her a source meeting the GNG guideline. If Europe is writing about Mongolian speed skating; much more sources exist in Mongolia and/or Mongolian. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to see more in depth coverage in a biographical article, for example, details about how she got into the sport, personal life, sports technique, influence on others; generally, brief mentions and profile pages in database websites don't enable someone to meet GNG and I don't see why this article should be exempt Spiderone 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and comment @Spiderone: see three sources I found in Mongolian. 1 and 2 and 3; so meeting GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BASIC per sources 2 and 3 (and possibly 1 as well) from the 3 listed in the comment just above this Spiderone 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Basic. Sufficient sources have established the subject's importance in Mongolian sport.Road to Oblivion (talk) 20:18, 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 06:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan-Hewitt[edit]

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

Would appreciate people's views on this biography of a hotelier. The coverage does not look strong to me and I have not been able to find better sources. I tagged the article for notability in August - this has now been removed by another editor who has worked on the article.

Reference 1 is The Goring Hotel, a primary source. Reference 2 is The Daily Mirror, discussed at WP:RSP and categorised as "The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context". Reference 3 is to the Durham student newspaper. Reference 4 is to Know Your Meme, which WP:RSP says is "generally unreliable". Reference 5 is to The Goring Hotel again. Ref 6 is to the Daily Express, and WP:RSP categorises that as "generally unreliable". Ref 7 is to The Royal Warrant Holders' Association, which is a primary source. Ref 8 is to a site called Luxury Travel Advisor - I'm unsure about its reliability; there is a named author for the article, which is a positive. Ref 9 to same article. Ref 10 is to The Caterer, which I think is probably reliable, but is an interview. Ref 11 is to Boutique Hotelier, and reads like a press release (some of the text appears on the Master Innholders site too). Ref 12 is to The Tatler - the mention of the subject's name is just a photograph caption. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Freeman of the City of London seems notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, but could not find a source supporting it. The statement in the article itself about it doesn't give a reference. Tacyarg (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure the Freeman of the city honor is a high enough level to grant default notability. If it was, we would be able to adequately source its conferal. Not every honor, award or recognition actually grants default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 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) 00:19, 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) 16:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he seems a competent hotel manager, I don't see what he's ever done meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another promotional article, with no assertion of notability made at all in the article. FalconK (talk) 06:39, 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 speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devrattan Kanda[edit]

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

Appears to be falling short on WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC. Doesn't appear to have any coverage outside social media. I was looking to draftify but a draft already exists. Spiderone 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:A7. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it qualified for A7 as there were assertions of notability (e.g. His Naam Chalde song appreciated by many hit punjabi artists.) Spiderone 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, notability isn’t inherited Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- - No reliable sources as references. Instagram is Instagram and is not a reliable source.
  - Nothing in this article satisfies musical notability criteria.
  - It says: 'There are a lot of covers sung by Devrattan Kanda floating around on the Internet, most of them are the same song under different names. Though there are a few original short bits but they're of poor quality and don't qualify as singles so they're not listed above.' That is a remarkable admission, which basically says that the subject is not notable.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Gazal world (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is not one possible source that can be used on Wikipedia in regards to Devrattan Kanda. The subject fails every point in WP:ARTIST and all points in WP:GNG. Coreykai (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable works and fails GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Reznik[edit]

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

No comment on whether the product is notable, though it doesn't appear to be, this is entirely sourced to press releases, unreliable/small time niche blogs with no apparent editorial oversight. This is apparently an extension of his PR team's efforts.... GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a total lack of sustained coverage in WP:RS and this does indeed seem promotional in intent. FalconK (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 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 redirect to List of Sindhi-language newspapers. Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Koshish[edit]

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

14 Years, article has not progressed past a stub. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NEGLECT is expressly not a reason for deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't seem notable and lacks enough sources.--Blurz (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:20, 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) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sindhi-language newspapers. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion but lack of sourcing is. There is an existing list of similar newspapers where this should be stored and sourced. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:30, 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 delete. czar 06:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirouhi Belorian[edit]

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

Is the first female Armenian lawyer in Argentina notable? No real references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 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) 00:20, 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) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:RS, and my standards. First off, there's no allegation of notability; being the first lawyer of an ethnic and sexual minority in a medium-sized country isn't notable. There's no evidence at all that she's anything other than an ordinary lawyer; she gave money to a charity like many middle-class people do. I looked under several different searches and found no newspaper articles, books, scholarly articles, or websites about this attorney. Without more evidence, this is a non-notable attorney. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have come to doubt our direct competence to determine what "first x to do y" claims are notable. For a first x to do y claim to do notable, we need to insist on reliable 3rd party sources that mention the person and this fact (or that mention the person, and ignore the fact, if we have substantial enough of the later, we might create the article, though maybe not with the less than well sourced first x to do y claims). Having seen how some of these first x to do y claims work in reality, I thing we also must require the sourcing to be substanital. I say that because a few years back there was a US senate candidate who ran a virtually non-existent campaign, but still got an article on Wikipedia because of trivial, passing, anemic article notice on a first x to do y campaign. The local media covered this individual far less than a normal candidate because their campaign was so weak and non-existent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gathering 2005[edit]

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

A music event that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I would suggest a merge to Global Gathering but I don't think that any of this content is worth retaining. It's all written as if to promote the event, right down to the price listings for booze and the time at which we can expect each act to take to the stage. Sources do exist for this event but it's all routine announcements, not enough in-depth coverage. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Global Gathering festivals were major dance music festivals at the time, attracting tens of thousands of people – the claim in the article that this was the biggest dance festival in the country is very believable, even if it can't be verified. There probably are reviews of this particular year's event in music magazines like Mixmag, but as these aren't available online, I can't make a strong case for keeping this article based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. And I can't disagree with the nominator that the content is just trivia and not worth keeping – there's nothing about the actual music except for set times. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Global Gathering itself warrants a topic, it's probably only second to Creamfields in terms of attendance. I've never been myself but I've been to many similar festivals and had a great time. My reason for starting the AfD is because I didn't feel each individual year warrants its own article. If you remove all the promo material, there isn't really an article left. Any worthwhile content could probably summarised in one or two sentences in the main article, if necessary. Spiderone 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you – I used to go to all those festivals too... GG, Creamfields, Homelands, Gatecrasher Summer Sound System... I just wanted to emphasise for editors who aren't British or into dance music, that these festivals are not some village green affair, they really were major music festivals in the UK. But you are right, it's unlikely that each year warrants its own article, and certainly not this kind of article full of irrelevant trivia. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the set list did give me some nostalgia I must say! Good times were certainly had. Spiderone 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, that was an interesting message to receive about this article! It was me who created this article all those years ago (and I think it was my first one when I was a Wikipedia baby). But I'm not saying that because I created it and went to the event. I've always had a very long term view of encyclopedias. Personally speaking I find it interesting to read things written, say, a hundred years ago. I actually remember deliberately including things like the price of drinks and whatnot because I thought ephemera liek that maybe one day, many years from (even more than 15), someone might find the useful. It is true that the article doesn't have any pages and I suppose you can't go on my word that I wrote those setlist times out from the programme (maybe I can find it?). In principle, I don't mind it being merged into a larger Global Gathering page, but it sort-of seems a shame to lose such detail.(I can see it could do with some editing!) Maybe one day there will be no dance music and people will be curious to study Underworld's live music a bit like I was reading about Henry Purcell earlier today. Seaweed (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia's notability policy has changed a fair bit since then. I think we have to be quite firm when it comes to WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability and it's hard to see articles like this meeting those standards any more. If a concert fandom Wiki exists, then that would be the appropriate place for these setlists and price lists etc. Spiderone 11:31, 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) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I would probably say delete. Drinks prices in 2005 might be interesting to some people, but it's not encyclopedic material. More to the point, it's not verifiable either – the same goes for "most attendees arriving via the M40 motorway", "the weather was mainly overcast and there was occasional drizzle", the police had an X-ray machine... this is all trivia, and unverifiable trivia. Basically the only part that could be verified are the set lists, and we don't have a reliable source for that right now, and many editors aren't keen on having huge lists of performers of every year of the festival. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thoroughly unsourced (well, there's an implicit primary source of the festival's program), and largely promotional. We don't have stand-alone articles for each year of Burning Man (with 70k attendees), so I don't buy the WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. Best handled as a blgo post and/or having the program on archive.org, not as an article for each year's festival power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsamara Amany[edit]

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

BLP of a party official and spokesperson who does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is quite notable in Indonesia as the main spokesperson for the PSI. She is fulfills general notability in my opinion Germartin1 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not conferred just by saying that the person "fulfills general notability" — it is passed by showing the reliable source coverage about her that gets her over the bar: notability isn't a measure of what the article (or somebody commenting in an AFD discussion) says, it's a measure of the quality of the sources that are being shown to support what the article says. But being a political party apparatchik is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion, and the footnotes here aren't getting her over WP:GNG: the first just briefly namechecks her existence in the process of being primarily about other people, the second is just her routine wedding announcement, and the third is just a photo gallery of her on what's clearly the Indonesian equivalent to Buzzfeed. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable for serving on the organizational board of a political party. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources. Instagram and Twitter should not be included under external links.--Blurz (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to delete the links then. And feel also free to extend the article as there are many sources available. Germartin1 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NPOL.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Germartin1. BengkelBerkah05 (Talks/Contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a simple apparatchik, but rather chair of the party. Would concur that she fails NPOL, but rather passes the GNG. She has multiple year coverage in leading Indonesian and regional news sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ H, Clara Maria Tjandra Dewi (23 November 2020). "Ketua DPP PSI Tsamara Amany Kritik Cuitan Anies Baswedan Baca Buku". Tempo (in Indonesian).
^ Ghaliya, Ghina (11 December 2019). "Court shatters young politicians' hopes to run in regional elections before 30". The Jakarta Post.
^ Post, The Jakarta (27 April 2017). "Ahok inspires millennials to get involved in politics: Tsamara Amany". The Jakarta Post.
^ Hilton, Sarah (18 September 2019). "Asia's Gen Z: Three young pacesetters to watch". Nikkei Asia.
^ Annuar, Azril (26 June 2018). "As Indonesia's 22-year-old politician calls, Syed Saddiq laments Malaysians 'too young' to vote | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com.

regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chair of the party" still isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia. And when it comes to sources, we're not just looking for any article that happens to have her name in it — we're looking for sources that are substantively analyzing her work, not sources that glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about something or someone else. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Bearcat, I didn't suggest being chair of a party is notable per se (although it does contribute to notability), rather I was commenting on the fact that you had labelled her incorrectly (and dismissively) as an apparatchik; if you are wedded to cold war terminology, she would more acurately considered part of the nomenklatura...although the PSI is far from a ruling-party. AFAICS your comment doesn't engage with the sources I provided.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Goldsztajn
https://metro.tempo.co/read/1408101/ketua-dpp-psi-tsamara-amany-kritik-cuitan-anies-baswedan-baca-buku/full&view=ok	Long-standing Indonesian news source, famously independent	Repeatedly attacked during Suharto dictatorship	Discusses subject in detail as a result of a criminal investigation/police harassment for a tweet	✔ Yes
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/12/11/court-shatters-young-politicians-hopes-to-run-in-regional-elections-before-30.html	Long-standing Indonesian news source	Oldest, most prominent English-language newspaper of Indonesia	~ Article on Tsamara Amany and her co-plaintiff's case before the Indonesian Constitutional Court; more than passing coverage, but not continuous	~ Partial
https://www.thejakartapost.com/youth/2017/04/27/ahok-inspires-millennials-to-get-involved-in-politics-tsamara-amany.html	Long-standing Indonesian news source	Oldest, most prominent English-language newspaper of Indonesia	Profile of Tsamara Amany	✔ Yes
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Asia-s-Gen-Z-Three-young-pacesetters-to-watch	Publication of long-standing regional news organisation from Japan	Mainstream news source	Profile of the 3 leading young "pacesetters", Tsamara Amany one of the three	✔ Yes
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/06/26/as-indonesias-22-year-old-politician-calls-syed-saddiq-laments-malaysians-t/1645744	Online newspaper in Malaysia (formerly newspaper founded in 1896)	Mainstream news source	Profile of Tsamara Amany's visit to Malaysia discussing young people in politics	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparatchik", as an English word, does not retain its original Russian meaning of referring only to a junior bureaucrat, but refers to anybody whose activity in politics is as a backroom organizer rather than a public elected legislator: per Oxford, "an official in a large political organization". Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparatchik: The term is often considered derogatory, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described... but we digress. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More multi-year RS SIGCOV.

1. In depth profile from Tempo (in Indonesian) on 2019 International Women's Day.^[1]

2. 2017 Report discussing online smearing and release of her personal information (in Indonesian).^[2]

3. 2019 Profile in Indonesian from Australian (public) national broadcaster during visit to Melbourne.^[3]

4. 2018 report (in Indonesian) on her views on young people in politics from leading Indonesian news source.^[4]

5. 2017 profile from Taiwanese news source.^[5]

References

^ Kustiani, Rini (8 March 2019). "Hari Wanita Sedunia, Tsamara Amany Soal Politik & Peran Domestik". Tempo (in Indonesian).
^ Jajeli, Rois (14 September 2017). "Tanpa Laporan, Tsamara Serahkan Penyebar Status Kawinnya ke Polisi". detiknews (in Indonesian).
^ World, Program The (4 December 2019). "Ditanya Soal Papua di ABC TV, Tsmara Amany Minta 'Jangan Menghakimi' Isu Papua". Australian Broadcasting Corporation (in Indonesian).
^ Media, Kompas Cyber (28 October 2018). "Generasi Milenial Diharapkan Tak Alergi dalam Politik". KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian).
^ Hutton, Jeffrey (2 October 2017). "Young, Female, Outspoken. A Political Star Is Born in Indonesia". The News Lens International Edition.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat argument above. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 24 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 Indonesian musicians and musical groups. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian boy bands and girl groups[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and does not meet any purpose of a list under WP:LISTPURP.

WP:LISTN - there is a lack of evidence to suggest that this topic is discussed at length in reliable sources
WP:LISTPURP - this list does not contain any valuable information, it does not aid in navigation (as most of its contents are not notable) and it serves no developmental purpose Spiderone 19:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Spiderone's reasoning, as the list is full of non-notable groups and does not aid in Wikipedia navigation. Also it suffers from poorly-defined terms, as the first entry Dara Puspita was actually a self-contained rock band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN Samat lib (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable entries to List of Indonesian musicians and musical groups if not already listed there. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good idea, but out of the four blue-linked artists in this list article, three were already covered at List of Indonesian musicians and musical groups as suggested by Hanif Al Husaini. The lone exception was the aforementioned Dara Puspita, which I have added to that other article. Therefore the "merge" is complete and since we now have that band listed where appropriate, I still recommend deleting the list under discussion here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The merge is done. In terms of WP:ATD, a redirect probably isn't appropriate as it's not a likely search term. Spiderone 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Indonesian musicians and musical groups, since content has been merged, a redirect is necessary to preserve the attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Indonesian musicians and musical groups - Hasn't a similar page to this been AfD'd recently? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above: a merge is already done. While I voted to delete, a simple redirect to the suggested article could help wrap this up already. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:09, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genevra, California[edit]

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

GUdde and Durham seem to disagree a bit about the naming of the post office, and some topos show both "Berlin" and "Genevra Station", but the topos show nothing but station buildings, one of which is apparently still there. It has been incorporated int a huge Archer Daniels Midland rice mill. Community? No. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Guess what, Berlin had a post office. Searching newspapers.com yields trivial coverage: [17], which states there was a townsite there and [18], which states that one of the heirs lived at Berlin, Colusa County, [19] states that someone could sew sacks. GBooks yield Gudde, which I added to the article. Most of the other GBook references are to the station, which means that WP:STATION cold be in play here. Others differ as to whether the a post office is a legal recognition, I feel that it is, which meets #1 of WP:GEOLAND. The coverage seems fairly trivial, though there is one short newspaper article about the name change. I don't feel that #2 of WP:GEOLAND is met. Cxbrx (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to show notability for an article.--Blurz (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:28, 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) 16:00, 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) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mabhikwa[edit]

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

Non notable actor and movie director who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR & WP:DIRECTOR respectively. A before search reveals subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I cannot find at least 3 reliable sources that satisfies WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. No lead roles in multiple notable films. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some information regarding him on African Filmy and British Film Institute. So I think, they are some notable websites. Yes, he may playing minor roles in cinema, but his only feature film has won awards at international film festivals and received critical acclaim. So, my opinion is, IMPROVE the article, without simply saying DELETE IT. This is Wikipedia. So, IMPROVE it with the help of local Zimbabwean Wiki editors. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 9:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment — Editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 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)} 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gihan Jayaweera. A quick Google suggests he has notability within southern African cinema as a film-maker and festival administrator; hits on Google Books, and Scholar [20] returns results including one which describes him as one of "Zimbabwe's prominent black film and television personalities". Humansdorpie (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Humansdorpie, could you be so kind as to provide us with at least 3 reliable sources that discusses subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage? Because if that one hit you got on scholar is what you are banking on, then it doesn’t do anything and is of no value to WP:GNG, that requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, puffery used in sources to describe someone does not translate to that individual being notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 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) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Celestina007. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources identified by Humansdorpie. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources barely discuss him and when they do it’s in passing & and not with in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only film he actually directed was a non-notable film, anything else is just assistant directing or minor acting roles, therefore failing every point in WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. I also cannot find any coverage of the subject on the internet, and any reference in this article is just some equivalent to IMDb simply listing his filmography which is not considered reliable, therefore failing WP:GNG. To anyone saying keep, you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. Coreykai (talk) 19:38, 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 redirect to H2O: Just Add Water. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Sullivan[edit]

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

A child actor whose most significant role was as a supporting actor in about 20% of the series H2O:_Just_Add_Water and does not appear in any way to meet WP:NACTOR. I'd be happy with a redirect, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_9#Trent_Sullivan means that neither bold redirection without this AFD or PROD+redirect is appropriate. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 22 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)} 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H2O:_Just_Add_Water - given the RfD found it was an appropriate redirect, it is also an appropriate alternative to deletion in this case. Deus et lex (talk) 11:32, 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) 00:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I favor delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why is a redirect not an appropriate alternative to deletion? Deus et lex (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. We have tended to delete marginally notable child actors. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't disagree with the lack of notability, but why is a redirect to his major role inappropriate? Deus et lex (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing moderator - alternatives to deletion are required to be considered before outright deletion of the page. While there seems to be consensus that a standalone article is not appropriate given the lack of notability, no one has shown why a redirect to Sullivan's most notable series, is not inappropriate. Please consider this before deleting the page. Deus et lex (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the H2O article. Since they are mentioned on the page, that would appear to be a valid redirect, but I agree the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 24 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. Improve please! Can always be renominated again or PROD'd. Missvain (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Sievers[edit]

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

Non-notable computer programmer. Article was tagged for notability in July 2017 but has not improved in 3.5 years. It has actually shrunk in length over that time. Most of the links referenced by the article pertain to technical contributions the person made around 2012-2014, and there is no indication of subsequent activity or professional growth. A web search indicates some disagreements between him and some senior Linux kernel developers in 2014/15, really only covered by Linux gossip sites and internet forums. No news after that. The person's entire claim to notability seems to be "I contributed some code changes to Linux components and Linus Torvalds got annoyed with me" which is not sufficient motivation for an encyclopedia article. Article was prodded and de-prodded in the past, hence this AfD nomination. I have no authorship or connection with the article or the person. Quack5quack (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the other stuff, systemd is a pretty darn notable piece of software, with significant use across large numbers of Linux distros, the development of which was a significant task and remains quite notorious (I have heard a lot of arguments against it, but to say a co-creator of it is non-notable seems incorrect). jp×g 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of systemd is not under question. The notability of the Kay Sievers article is, because it was tagged in 2017, has not improved, and is unlikely to improve: there doesn't seem to be any substantive material worth including from a web search about him. If your rationale is to include him as a systemd co-author, consider replacing the Kay Sievers article with a redirect to systemd. -- Quack5quack (talk) 19:45, 23 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)} 16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He seems notable based on accomplishments. You have to realize that these types of people do not get much news coverage, so they should not be reviewed similar to entertainers, politicians etc, who get tons of coverage. He has enough industry coverage (peer reviewed) to justify notability and based on his accomplishments, we should keep this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person meets WP:GNG notability by having significant coverage. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER[reply]

Sockblocked. Geschichte (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Honestly, the subjects references show no notability. Most of them are far from reliable sources, not independent and one of them is even self-published. The subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO and does not really pass WP:GNG either, as I can't find any sources on him and he himself has not gained any awards or significance. I understand that he has created significant device managers and interfaces, but unfortunately according to Wikipedias notability guidelines, he does not qualify for his own article, as a subject has to be notable for themselves and not something else. Coreykai (talk) 16:20, 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallak Faisal Zafar[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NSPORTS. Basically, she won a regional youth competition in Austria against 22 competitors from Italy and Austria[21], not some worldwide youth event of major importance. The category she competed in was "basic novice girls II". A nice achievement, and perhaps the first step towards a big career, but that's it. Fram (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made amendments to the article thereby removing the core issues due to which my article was subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidwriter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 13-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 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) 00:39, 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) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable yet. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly TOOSOON; if she qualifies for the Olympics we will re-create the article then. Winning a competition for 12-year olds at the "Basic Novice" level is clearly not sufficient for inclusion, even if the Pakistani news wire picks the results up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 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 merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver. Please merge anything of value into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and then create a redirect to that article, thank you. Missvain (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Simeon Catholic Cemetery[edit]

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

Non-notable cemetery. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This cemetery has been registered by the U.S. Geological Survey has a significant geographic location. A citation to the USGS has already been made in the article including the GPS coordinates.https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=GNISPQ:3:::NO::P3_FID:2040742 This cemetery appears on the Find-A-Grave website which includes 1,213 photos of grave markers at the cemetery. https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2216753/saint-simeon-catholic-cemetery Jeffrey.Wilson.OSF (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we don't consider either of those links reliable sources for determining notability. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A general question to the community. When someone selects the categories "Cemeteries in Colorado" and "Roman Catholic cemeteries in the United States", are they to assume that these lists are comprehensive? If this is not a reasonable assumption, then should those categories be modified to state "Notable Cemeteries in Colorado" and "Notable Roman Catholic cemeteries in the United States". Just curious. Thank you for your feedback. Jeffrey.Wilson.OSF (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey.Wilson.OSF - it depends on the list. There are certain lists which not limiting it to notable entries would make it impossible, e.g. List of people from Phoenix. However, when a list can be contained to a reasonable degree, then it does not have to be limited to only notable entries. Categories, however, are only given to notable entrants, so no, those are not comprehensive, and since they are not lists, changing the title is irrelevant.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The vast majority of local churches are NN. The same should apply to cemeteries. In answer to Jeffrey Wilson, any one who regularly uses WP will know that only notable subjects have articles. Only articles are categorised. Accordingly, it is implicit in the category system that only notable cemeteries will appear. Mere existence is not enough to have a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 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) 00:39, 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) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No real claim to notability, which is understandable given that this appears to be a relatively new cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a quick read of news articles shows it's the choice of eternal rest for many notable or at least locally important persons. FWIW, my cousins live nearby and I've met then-Bishop Chaput, who consecrated it. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV of the topic. It only has local coverage because it's just a local cemetery. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, so it's meaningless however many or whose obituaries mention it. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver who own and run it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver; I've added a "Cemeteries" section to that page. Many cemeteries are not notable, and I see no sign this (fairly new) one is; however there is an obvious merge/redirect target to have a list entry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Educational Excellence[edit]

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

The only references in the article a dead primary source and a link to a map that doesn't seem to be related to the company. I couldn't find anything about them, in-depth or otherwise, in a WP:BEFORE either. So, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: The map link was there to show the real location of the address because the United States Postal Service "city name" may not necessarily be related to the municipality where a place actually is. This page from the City of Houston states: "Would annexation change our mailing addresses? No. The U.S. Postal Service establishes ZIP codes and mailing addresses in order to maximize the efficiency of their system, not to recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, a change in jurisdiction does not result in a change in mailing addresses." It goes on to give examples of places physically in one city having a mailing address indicating a different city. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still trying to find a secondary source about this. It's possible that archives of The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News are paywalled, so I may have to see if articles come up in academic search engines from Michigan libraries. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Adamant1: from the University of Michigan database I found the following:
- "Global Educational Excellence to open school in Jordan". The Arab American News. Vol. 28, no. 1388. 2012-09-15.
- Hijazi, Samer (2012-04-28). "Global Educational Excellence celebrates re-opening of two Detroit charter schools". The Arab American News. Vol. 28, no. 1368.
If you like I could request for copies of the articles or see if the Wayback Machine has them.
I also found this article which has a paragraph on the company.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 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) 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV. Duncan079 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:59, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Xiu[edit]

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

Non-notable character and fails to pass WP:GNG. No reception of character. lullabying (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I looked through the section and did notice that there was some reception but some are from non-notable outlets. lullabying (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Chinese sources in the reception seem comparable to our English CBR-and-friends listicles, nothing substantive from the translated content I see. At best, merge the reception to the character's entry in a related list of characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but in Chinese - This article might be better suited for Chinese Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia.--Blurz (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurz: This article deletion discussion only affects the English Wikipedia, and sources in languages other than English are accepted. The problem is that articles for fictional characters need to have reliable sources that discuss the notability of the character on its own and its impact. Tintor2 has a list of examples on his own page that can give you an example of what they should look like: User:Tintor2#Articles with notable work (or more or less). lullabying (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 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) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Chinese sources have not been shown to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Seeing as there is no article on the main work or author, someone interested in documenting this character should look into sourcing on the novel itself and/or author instead and make articles on those topics should they meet GNG. TTN (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article on the TV series based on the book. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at the linked coverage and it's not sufficient. For instance, at [22], it just says that he won "Most Popular Original Character of the Year" at an award; that's great, but it's not substantial coverage. A deletion here is irrelevant to creating a Chinese language article on zhwiki. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 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 redirect to Adimurai. Missvain (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adithada[edit]

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

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Tyw7 with the reason "Content fork of Adimurai" FASTILY 06:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adimurai There is nothing to indicate that this merits a standalone article. The entire article consists of restating the one statement mention in Adimurai, so I suggest a redirect to that article. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 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) 00:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep history there are some things in old revisions not in the current revision which may be useful to merge into another article. For the time being, redirect to Adimurai or an appropriate section of that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 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 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. czar 23:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Fork, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick's index calls it a locale, which generally falls below the WP:GEOLAND bar. Topographic maps show a point with 2-4 buildings. Newspapers.com results are for various bodies of water; Gbooks results are for bodies of water and a post office in Tennessee active in the 1850s. Not seeing a WP:GNG or GEOLAND pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 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) 00:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 1882, West Fork, Allen County did not have a post office. Rennick says "West Fork (Allen) - See Halfway". Rennick thinks West Fork is so minor they redirect to somewhere else? Rennick's entry for Halfway does not mention West Fork. Maybe this article could redirect to Halfway, Allen County, Kentucky? Searching newspapers.com is a bit tricky, I found hits for West Fork of Drakes creek, in Warren County, but did not see any for Allen County. I'm just not seeing non-trivial WP:RS that there was a legally recognized place at this location. Cxbrx (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 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. czar 06:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Sah[edit]

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

Non notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR Ruqayya ansari (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guddi1111 Brought in the notability references & quotes — Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail to establish notability; if we need to go to YouTube and Amazon for sources then the subject clearly is not notable. Fails WP:NACTOR as Sah has not had one major role. Spiderone 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:48, 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) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal O'Brien (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician and journalist, not properly sourced as having any credible claim to passing our notability standards for politicians or journalists. When I first found this 20 minutes ago, its introduction claimed that the subject has been a Canadian MP -- however, this is not verified by Parliament's own website, which does not list a Michael O'Brien as ever having served in the House of Commons. What is true is that he ran as a candidate in 1988, and was initially declared the winner in his district, but then was found to have lost to Maurizio Bevilacqua on a recount, following which the whole thing got so tied up in legal wrangling over continued recounts and controverted dual swearing-in attempts that Parliament decided to just completely void the whole thing and schedule a new by-election, which O'Brien much more unequivocally lost to Bevilacqua — but as far as Parliament's website is concerned, Bevilacqua is listed as the MP duly elected on November 21, 1988 (the original election day), and O'Brien is not listed as ever having been an MP at all.
So no matter what the legal complexities of the situation may have been, we can't deem O'Brien as passing WP:NPOL #1 just because of an election dispute, if Parliament itself doesn't list him as a past member at all — simply being involved in a legal battle to be declared the true winner of the seat is not the same thing as actually serving, and thus not a notability claim that passes NPOL. The place for content about the dispute is in Bevilacqua's article and/or York North, not in a badly referenced standalone BLP of O'Brien as an individual.
But nothing else in the article constitutes a claim that he's notable for any other reason besides a disputed election snafu -- the election dispute itself is minimally referenced to a tiny smattering of media coverage that isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG, while everything else is referenced to primary sources, directory entries and photographs that are not support for notability at all. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as O'Brien has been directly associated with an organization that has been the article creator's exclusive topic of concern for at least three years. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming an Editor is not a journalist? ^[1] ^[2]

Quite aside from the fact that I said no such thing, "editor" simply is not an "inherently" notable role that constitutes an automatic free pass into Wikipedia either, especially if your sources for his editorship of anything are his own self-published directory listings of his own content on directly affiliated websites (such as his own personal website or the websites of his own employers) instead of third-party writing about his editorship of anything in third-party sources independent of his career. Being notable as an editor doesn't automatically happen just because it's possible to offer technical verification that he's been an editor — it requires other people to establish the significance of his editorship by externally analyzing the importance of that work. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette from Montreal, Quebec, Canada newspage Dec 10, 1990 — Voters in Beausejour and the Toronto area riding of York North cast their ... "Tory Michael O'Brien was declared the election-night winner by 58 votes" ... He went to Ottawa where he sat as a member of Parliament for 55 days".

This is not a partisan political item but the second significant Controverted Election in Canadian History, (O’Brien v. Hamel (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 87; Nielsen v. Simmons (1957), 14 D.L.R. (2d) 446; ) the first being Erik Nielsen in the 1950s. It is in the Canada Gazette as noted here and for sure a significant piece of Canadian History. For one thing, I saw Mr. O'Brien deliver his Maiden speech in the House of Commons so I know he was sworn in. According to Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons at the time) and Camille Montpetit Mr. O'Brien in November 1988 "was declared the winner by 99 votes, was sworn in, and participated in the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement debate in the short-lived First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament".

^[3]

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Martin Shadwick (November 22, 1989). "The Wednesday Report Index 1988". Maclean Hunter. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Melissa Hemingway (August 19, 2015). "FPMag Authors". The RINJ Foundation. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
^ Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit (January 12, 2000). "Canada House of Commons". The House Of Commons And Its Members. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

Controverted elections are not notability claims, and no notability claim that he could make ever justifies the garbage sourcing you used here. If he isn't listed by Parliament's website now as ever having been an MP, but rather Bevilacqua is listed as having been the original MP as of election day 1988 regardless of any legal wrangling that may have existed at the time as to who was or wasn't the rightful winner, then claims and counterclaims about the dispute don't make a person "inherently" notable in and of themselves in the absence of much better sources than you used. Erik Nielsen isn't notable because the Yukon seat in 1957 was controverted; he's notable because he won the redo election and stayed an MP for another 30 years. If he had lost the redo and never run again, and thus couldn't claim to have any other notability claim besides "challenger in a disputed election", then he would not have an article on that basis at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have found the Hansard record of O'Brien's Maiden speech in the House of Commons. ^[1]

https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/800?r=0&s=1

It doesn't matter whether there's a Hansard record or not. It matters whether he's considered now to have ever been the rightful MP — which, as I've demonstrated, he isn't, as Maurizio Bevilacqua is deemed by Parliament's website to have been the MP for York Centre all the way back to election day 1988. Hansard is a primary source, not a notability-making or independent reliable source: notability does not come from the things a person did, it comes from the amount of media coverage they did or didn't get for doing the things they did. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete standalone article but merge the information about the election somewhere if it's not already on the site. Poses an interesting question - do you pass WP:NPOL if you were sworn in, but your swearing in was voided? Personally, I don't think Mr. O'Brien is notable. I did find a bit of news coverage, but it was sort of noted more as a curiosity than front-page news because of a back and forth recount, similar to [23]. I think the event itself is notable and should be covered somewhere, but I don't think that makes him notable, and he doesn't look notable for any other reason. (If it's already on the site, great.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is notable and must not be deleted. The references are not garbage they are my country's House of Commons of Canada and Supreme Court etc. You say you canot find news coverage but over thirty years ago, there was no such internet News publishing and you would need to go to a Library and search microfiche and there you will find tons of material. Wikipedia is better served by carrying stories of notable events and in my country this is a notable event proving that DEMOCRACY WORKS.

^[2], who was at the centre of an election dispute in 1988 but nevertheless was sworn into office as elected ^[3] and made his Maiden Speech in the House of Commons of Canada on 23 December 1988. ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Just to be clear, I searched a newspaper archive. SportingFlyer T·C 11:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have looked over the years and never noticed any significant numbers of analogue records. Mos papers make that clear. But in the libraries there are tons on this subject. I have found some more but I do not know how to 'Wikipedia' those. I will figure it out.

Meanwhile I wrote this piece in the context of current democratic events in Canada and the USA. Further, I knew of Nielsen's contested election because I read his book, "The House is Not A Home". And I also knew of O'Brien's York North Fiasco. We did a case study in school. It is used as a significant precedent of HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. These two men did this tedious work to correct elections where every vote makes a difference with painstaking efforts regardless that it be or not be to their benefit. Neither could gain---they only would get a null election and a by-election.

As we are bombarded daily in Canada from the United States with all sorts of threats to disenfranchise millions of voters, I thought this would be relevant as an historical marker for how things are done with civility and democratic values.

Today, this is important and it is indeed encyclopedic. The University of Toronto team that has chronicalized Canadian Hansard noted "The transcript of Parliamentary Debates (“Hansard”) is a 150-year running record of Canadian political history. The richness of this record presents a needle-in-a-haystack problem of enormous magnitude. At a rate of a novel’s worth of reading each day, it would take 66 years to read the transcripts of the House and the Senate. It would take a further 28 years to read what was added in the interim."

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does not make O'Brien notable. We have rules for notability here, and what you have done is written about an event, which does deserve to be in the encyclopaedia, but you have written the event around a specific person instead of writing it about the event. As Bearcat notes, the information would be better served either at Bevilacqua's article, at the article about the constituency, or, possibly, a standalone article named 1988 York North constituency election (or something similar.) It does not mean O'Brien is notable enough for his own article, which is why I !voted "merge" above. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' the latter being the Canadian Chief Returning Officer who ran the election (terribly in the case of York North. There were multiple outcomes from the RO in fact every time they recounted they had a different result to the point where it was impossible to unequivocally determine the intentions of the electorate.). I talked to one of the lawyers working for counsel Ronald Rolls on the matter and she said they had rooms full of volunteers working on the Petition to the Supreme Court, with O'Brien and staff, for 8 months.

I do not degrade the rules of notability. I initially responded to the complainant who basically said I wrote a bunch of lies. He said O'Brien was never sworn in, never an MP, etc. That is simply untrue and I am not a liar. I was jumped with this 'deletion' in the midst of working on the article. It probably should have been sandboxed first. My bad. But the cites are all there and an abundance of proof which is how this deletion request was called. So you are on a different track than the deletion request to which I responded.

As far as proving notability is concerned, this is not about the internet's digital data it is about actual newspaper clippings on Microfiche. They do not exist online. I repeat, any claim that this has been researched to a negative outcome disproving notability by other than me thus far is patently disingenuous because the data relates to an era 'before such records were digitalized around the time of Windows 95 and Windows 98'. The amount of work involved in digitizing data before 1990 is colossal. Read back to the quote from University of Toronto Professors. In two parts I made it clear that I need to spend time in a physical library and go through the microfiche if my concept oof notability is not accepted. The work involved in changing the statutes is done by O'Brien and 'owned by O'Brien' which I deem is self-evident. But the scholarly articles on such are in old newspaper clippings. I need Librarian assistance to get what I find digitalized. I would need the time to do that and that is awkward because of the pandemic and the major libraries being on lockdown or limited hours. Again my point is that the case of Nielsen (1957), which availed the 'Controverted Election Act', introduced the importance of the Act's intentions, but 'OBrien vs Hamel' opened the door to an amended 'Federal Elections Act' which included an enhanced variant of 'Controverted Election Act' to raise the importance in anticipation of many future events (which there have been) and which all cite 'O'Brien' and 'Nielsen'. That being said, I further adduce that O'Brien changed the course of history for Canada. He is the precedent for the changing of the Act. His work and accomplishment made the electoral process better and shone a light on how to deal with such matters in a civil and structured manner. This is very important. Please skip the politics. This is not about Bevilaqua or Liberals vs Conservatives or whatever. It is about how to deal with divisiveness in politics when it emerges in democratic elections. In the alternative, democracy fails in the darkness, with malfeasance. I submit that two articles are needed, not merging

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - there's a number of newspapers from the time online which all show coverage of the event but not necessarily of O'Brien, and O'Brien was never an MP - his term was voided, as was made clear by a newspaper contemporaneous with the event (someone died before taking office, so his family got six months' pay, but O'Brien got cut off.) The vast majority of the sources in the article are primary and sourced to the legislature as well - they do not show his notability, which requires secondary sources. Again, the best thing to do here is to cover the event, which clearly passes WP:GNG, and not the person, who does not, especially apart from his coverage in the event. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"O'Brien was Never an MP" Not that that is the point but there is no such process for voiding a sworn in MP's term in office. You adduce facts because you say they are facts. And by the way, you are probably searching the wrong name. Regardless of what you type, Google will change Micheal (Gaelic) to Michael (Hebrew). Look carefully and select the correct spelling. The correct spelling is Irish version and there is a huge difference. "There are more M O'Brien on the planet than any other clan" is what one librarian told me. https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/870?r=0&s=1 << Official records (Constituencies Served in the House of Commons) record both O'Brien and Bevilaqua having served as MPs in the 34th Parliament, unequivocally. You have no proof of argument. Or in the alternative maybe you have not even read the article? Or in another alternative maybe you read the article before it was completed? ANd it is pointless searching newspaper databases online for stories prior to 1995. That research has to be done on microfiche to be thorough. You argue sideways like a crab claiming facts to be such on your say so and then resort to antagonism when you feel as if you have lost your way. I was taking this seriously. I have provided substantial data in support of my arguments. You ridicule me. Regardless of your ridicule I disagree with burying this article. And I want the time to visit a library and get the microfiche's I want digitalized. I am surprised at your emotionalism. It reminds me of a passionate admin about five years ago screaming at me that X-Japan did not influence Luna Sea as if their life depended on their being correct. That was subjective. But this is historical fact. The anchor is the person who did the work despite it having no benefit to him, just a matter of serving the electorate in determining an unequivocal result.. In the Work that I have done already in the Library I have an article by Peter Murphy for CTV network who goes into great detail on the importance of this work. Anyway. I must go. Peace.

https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.proc_HOC_3401_1/34?r=0&s=1 List of Elected and sworn in members including O'Brien https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/916?r=0&s=1 1988/1989 list of Members in the Free Trade Debate Includes O'Brien Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out several times: either find him in Parliament's self-published directory of its own members — which you won't, because he isn't there — or you've got nothing. You say there's no process for voiding a sworn-in member's term in office? Well, obviously there is, because he isn't in Parliament's directory of its own members. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons". The House Of Commons And Its Members. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 15, 1988). "Canada House of Commons Votes and Proceedings Members Elected". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
^ Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Doesn't seem to be notable enough on his own, could be merged into an article on the election or to one talking about the snafu. He hasn't done much himself to warrant a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [Revote struck] O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' which was a huge undertaking with the only possible outcome being an unequivocal determination of the voters' intention.

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:04, 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) 01:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ [Revote struck] O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' which was a huge undertaking with the only possible outcome being an unequivocal determination of the voters' intention. At no point in history has a candidate been sworn in, sat through an entire session of a Parliament and then replaced in office by a recount. The HoC Records show that two members for the same riding were sworn in and sat in the 34th parliament. https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/916?r=0&s=1 This is not a parochial issue as has happened in this talk page. O'Brien according to public records is a Liberal today in a Toronto Riding. He ran as a Conservative in York North because that was the deal he made with Tony Roman according to Richmond Hill Liberal.

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while you are allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as often as you like, you are not allowed to "vote" more than once. That means you are not allowed to preface any of your followup comments with a restatement of the bolded "keep" that you've already given — followup comments are comments, not new votes. And incidentally, neither of these comments are adding anything new that hasn't already been addressed in this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the historical record seems clear that he was sworn in to the Canadian House of Commons and participated in that body before his election was declared void. We don't "give" notability for winning elections, we "give" it for being a member of a parliament. The article isn't great, but that's not a reason for deletion. I understand (but disagree with) the argument to merge this to an article about the event of the disputed election and/or the by-election, but I'm not sure those articles exist; I don't understand the reason for deleting it entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey W. Byrd[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I found little to no coverage about Byrd. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even remotely close to the level of sourcing that would be needed to pass GNG. Not every filmmaker is notable. Directing a huge number of music videos does not change his general non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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) 01:11, 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) 15:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to invite @Onel5969, Davidgoodheart, and Dream Focus: to this discussion. Any comments? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special:WhatLinksHere/Jeffrey_W._Byrd shows he did direct various films that have articles. His work makes him notable. https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/book-of-love-2-1200550316/ reads: director Jeffrey W. Byrd and his star/co-writer Eric K. George find clever ways of putting a fresh spin on familiar material. and Byrd and George allow their characters to have real emotions. So his work gets praise in reliable sources. Dream Focus 00:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus - his work makes him notable. DoubleCross (‡) 12:14, 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 redirect to Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)#Musical numbers. Sandstein 09:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dieu que le monde est injuste[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." I actually can't find any such sources, so I conclude that the song is not notable. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google mostly returns listings of lyrics or music videos for the song. I can't find much saying it charted, or anything about it otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could this be redirected to Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)#Musical numbers per WP:CHEAP (it's number 45 on that list)? Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)#Musical numbers: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 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) 01:11, 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) 15:55, 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) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

Nothing shows that this passes WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 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) 01:11, 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) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete There is a claim to notability, but I'm not entirely convinced that being the biggest CU in a small state is really enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:43, 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) 16:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Islands History Museum[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This museum was previously known as Arthur Child Heritage Museum; a search for sources using that name should be conducted before deletion. I have found mention of this museum in In Search of the Grand Trunk: Ghost Rail Lines in Ontario by Ron Brown (pages 93 and footnote on page 226) Mind matrix 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and I'm still not seeing any notability. That book only has two sentences about the museum. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 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) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM, to which I contributed, states the general case for museums and other public attractions which readers expect to be covered in Wikipedia and which have lots of general coverage. For example, news coverage of new exhibits, events, such as coverage of 2014 new "wheelhouse" exhibit (including this "Thousand Islands Life.com" coverage). This one's building is a recently constructed but Victorian hotel-style building on site of the main railroad station for the Thousand Islands Railway. See photo at here in TripAdvisor's review. It is termed #3 of Ganonoque's attractions by TripAdvisor. The building is owned by the Town of Gananoque; the museum is operated by a charitable non-profit. --Doncram (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 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. czar 15:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hampden Academy (Newfoundland and Labrador)[edit]

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

Not a notable school or relevant in any way.--UserNL2020 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 90% of the schools on Wikipedia aren't notable but they still have articles..I don't think the notability rules apply to schools. I think we should keep this as a stub.

See: WP:DIRECTORY, there are hundreds of schools in this district and the majority are rural with no notability outside the local community.--UserNL2020 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. If 90% of articles on schools in Wikipedia are on non-notable institutions, we need to delete that 90% of articles, not keep every single article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards; nonetheless I would not oppose a merger to the appropriate target (town or district). Bearian (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. // Timothy :: talk 08:34, 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. czar 06:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (2020 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG, may be appropriate to draft until it nears release to see if it receives coverage BOVINEBOY2008 10:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alice_Parker#Film. This exists and was shown, but neither of those by itself give notability. I wasn't able to find where this documentary received the coverage necessary to pass WP:NFILM. It looks like there's a subsection in Parker's article about this and a redirect would be a reasonable alternative. On a side note, there seems to be a major issue with a conflict of interest, as here the article creator uses language that strongly implies that they work for Heritage Film Project. If this is the case, which seems almost certain, this poses a huge COI issue since a large chunk of their edits have been to articles they have a conflict of interest with. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking this. Upon investigation it looks like the article creator has been creating problematic articles relating to Eduardo Montes-Bradley and Heritage Film Project for years. There's a major possibility of this being part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and attempt to promote Montes-Bradley and his family, given that the edits are not limited to just the films (and focal subjects of said films) and businesses created by Montes-Bradley and also seem to include at least one article relating to a family member. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. There’s only one reference that is secondary. Duncan079 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find any additional sources except for some local articles. Also, per ReaderofthePack's observation, the pages relating to the filmmaker seem awfully suspicious. For a relatively minor documentary filmmaker, Eduardo Montes-Bradley's Wikipedia page is awfully detailed, with citations from primary sources or unlinked news articles. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per ReaderofthePack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 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 merge to List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia. Missvain (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. William Hornsby[edit]

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

Being mayor of a city such as Newport News is not a default sign of notability. One obituary is not enough to justify an article, especially when it is mainly a coatrack about someone else. There is not enough to justify having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Newport News is certainly a large enough city that a well-sourced article about a mayor could be kept, but it's not so large or important that the need to keep articles about its mayors would override the need for the articles to contain any substance. The notability test for mayors is not just the fact that one source can be shown to verify that he existed as a mayor — it is the ability to write and reliably source a substantive article about his political significance, containing information about specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. If somebody wants to tackle actually improving the article to meet the required standard, I'm not opposed to that — but without any access to archived Virginia media coverage from the 1970s I'm not the guy who can do it, and just having been mayor doesn't entitle him to an instant notability freebie in the absence of anybody actually doing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this person was mayor of a growing city of over 100,000 residents, now almost 180K. There's some potential sources online. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough notability for a separate article, someone can start "a list of city mayors" like article...but for a separate article...no. Kolma8 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia by expanding the list with another column or even 2 to be able to add the details that are found in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of mayors of Newport News, Virginia as suggested by Concertmusic above. If someone would expand while continuing to reference this article by digging behind paywalls that would also be good with me but as is very brief to keep. Notability is not an issue here -- it's all information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was mayor from 1970-1974. Most sources are not going to be found online, but the obituaries that are online strongly suggest that there is plenty of content about the subject and the subject's career. --Enos733 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just asserting that unspecified sources probably exist doesn't make a person notable in and of itself. We don't have a rule that our sources necessarily have to be online; we do, however, have a rule that regardless of whether the sources are web-published or retrieved from print archives, they do have to be shown. So just asserting that unspecified sources probably exist doesn't get him over the bar — what would change the equation is buckling down and doing the work to find enough sources to get him over the bar. If just saying that sources probably exist somewhere were all it took to save an article, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore, because then any rando could just walk into any deletion discussion, say that sources probably exist somewhere and drop the mic — so it's showing the actual results of a search for sourcing, not just asserting the probable existence of sources, that turns the tide. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard the community has developed for mayors (of mid sized and larger cities) is a desire to show the subject did more than exist. There should be enough to develop a more complete biography that (ideally) can include some details about the subject's life as well as their accomplishments as mayor. The obituary (certainly one source, but published 34 years after the subject's death, contains many of the elements that we would want in a Wikipedia entry. Searching for "J.W." or "Bill" pulls up numerous newspaper.com images that appear to feature the subject (and I do not have an account, so I can't read the thumbnail). --Enos733 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the standard is that we want mayors of small localities to be notable above and beyond the fact they were just mayor of a small locality, not that we can write a full biography of them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat wrote in Denis Law the question is "how much actual substance they enable us to say about the person beyond just technical verification that he holds the mayoralty," or "the ultimate test is whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read." This has become the standard for mayors of mid-sized and larger cities. --Enos733 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about the ability to source biographical detail in the sense of where he went to high school or the name of his wife — it's a question of being able to source substantive content about his mayoralty, such as specific things he did in the mayor's chair and specific effects he had on the development of the city and specific projects he spearheaded. So I'll thank you not to quote me as some sort of contradiction or retort to what SportingFlyer said, because what SportingFlyer said and what I said mean the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there is a qualitative difference between your comments and SportingFlyer's. I take what you argue for is that we want a substantive article about what the mayor did (or is achieving) while in office. I read SportingFlyer's comment above as more akin to the community's standard about most city council members - that a mayor (of a mid-sized city) should be notable independent of the fact that they serve as mayor (either because of another factor or because of significant coverage in national or international press (or at least more than purely local independent coverage). To me, the two proposed standards lead to two different results especially the types of sourcing that is expected to show notability. (This all said, the question in this AFD is to what degree we expect coverage of the subject in the Daily Press [and is not online] during the period of the subject's mayoralty is likely to provide substantive content about the things the subject did while as mayor - to reinforce the claims made in the obituary. I think the presumption of coverage should be made, even if we cannot access that at this moment.) --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is OK too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 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) 16:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EyeMan[edit]

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

non-notable rapper, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and a raging advert. And for clarification, this source (which is paid for blackhat spam) this (also blackhat spam) and this source (also SEO spam) are written by the same PR person, this is written by the "owner" of the first source Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The artist is notable and has made it to Top 2 in iTunes in France, with 4 songs released in a 5-month span all with professional music videos accompanied from a 2020 album 36000 Années Lumière all originals. The music videos have made a total of 26 million views only on YouTube ("Zayn" (7m), "Pardonne-moi" (12m), "Aya" (4m) and "Mi Reina" (3m)). There are similar numbers in other social media. The artist also has a previous album from 2018 entitled Ünga Vida proving longevity and the artist has been around prior to that as well. If one of the sources is similar to another source, it doesn't mean it is a PR job. The journalist himself works in more than one media outlet. The articles mentioned are based on interviews given to the outlets and of course would have similar stories as they are done in a limited span of time and were timed for the promotion for the imminent launch of the album in October 2020. But the similarities don't mean mean they are written by an assigned SEO. Information usually gets repeated in multiple sources even in reputable sources. The article is about an artist that is notable and I nominate it to stay. werldwayd (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the similarities don't mean mean they are written by an assigned SEO. Information usually gets repeated in multiple sources even in reputable sources. Did you read the sources? Because three of the 4 that aren't itunes are written by the same person ([24][25][26]) Sergio Centeno is a PR Expert that helps brands establish credibility and create brand awareness. He specializes in helping brands get recognized by prestigious publications and featured on major news outlets and the last is just a copy of the other three which are all paid for pieces. Secondly, itunes rankings mean absolutely nothing - it's not a chart. I'd expect an editor of your tenure to know this much. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some notable songs there, but obviously needs more citations. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to demonstrate notability. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share these mysterious reliable sources that have coverage of him that you apparently have, CaffeinAddict? Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another Upcoming rapper that is struggling to be known, even the few source provided on the article says .. MEET THE UPCOMING RAPPER : ^[1] Samat lib (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. it FAILS WP:MUSICBIO No evidence of Notability. Nothing to talk about Samat lib (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy with which some of the above commenters seem to be lacking familiarity. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this article is barely keep worthy. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmmm. #2 in iTunes France, (but no article in French Wikipedia), millions of streams on Youtube, songs appear everywhere on lyrics sites and streaming services, but virtually nothing about the man himself anywhere on the internet? (Apart from what has been written by the same, self-described "PR expert".) Someone has been very busy. I think delete unless something more concrete about the artist himself appears on reliable third party sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: Yes, it does not exist in any other language. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete iTunes charts are gameable, and apart from that there's vanishingly little claim of notability; apart from the "PR expert"'s articles there's basically no coverage of this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 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. czar 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of marginal seats in the 2015 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

This article has been in existence for five years and has never had any references. Not only are there no references for the specific facts and figures quoted in the article, there is no reference that says what a "marginal seat" is, how it is defined or even if such an entity exists in Canadian political science. The entire subject is WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I de-prodded this since Simon Fraser includes this information, see [27], but I haven't yet found it for 2015. I figured it'd be good to give it a week to see if it can be sourced and probably merged into the proper election article. This is information we carry all the time for countries like Australia and the UK, but I'm now realising "marginal seats" may be geographical (was surprised at the "lack of definition" because it's absolutely obvious to me) as it looks like this is called "target ridings" in Canada. No !vote yet since I haven't exhausted a source search. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Figures were originally derived from Elections Canada data on their website. I've attempted on occasion to find out if any academic research has been undertaken to help firm up this article, but have been disappointed by the lack of interest out there. If anyone can discover content of that kind, it would be greatly appreciated.Raellerby (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a selection of the closest results of Results of the 2015 Canadian federal election by riding. Perhaps the ten closest races (within 1%) can be highlighted on that article but this doesn't appear to need a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged somewhere if it can be sourced. I'm really less interested than I seem, but I know other countries use "ladders" to represent how marginal a seat is (off Wikipedia) and I was extremely surprised Canada didn't have one as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Marginal" is not an official classification AFAIK. It will also be different for every election. We'd also have to have List of landslide victories in the 2015 Canadian federal election, with an equally arbitrary percentage criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame the Canadian election results article is so poorly formatted, this information could easily be included there as a sortable list. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very unscientific vote not backed up by process - but I just spent 30 minutes using this article as a jumping-off point to find out what happened in some of these marginal results. Fascinating reading - and I wouldn't have had that chance without this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You need to specify a policy reason for why we should keep an unsourced article. See also WP:ILIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research, just listing statistics without contextualizing why anybody would need them to be documented for posterity. Also, incidentally, "marginal seat" isn't a Canadian political terminology at all — it's an attempt to import a British term into Canadian political discourse, not a thing that Canadian media talk about under that name, so even if there were a valid reason to keep this, it would still have to be retitled. (Yes, Canadian media do talk about "target ridings", with essentially the same "the result was close last time so the second-place party is dedicating extra resources to trying to flip the seat this time" meaning, but they don't analyze or contextualize the "target ridings" as a defined group that has any special or enduring significance as a group.) Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011, which was deleted for similar reasons. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and lack of importance. Shankargb (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete while very interesting topic, there are no sources and this article isn't new.VR _talk 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of the closest results in the 2015 election would be reasonable content to merge to Results of the 2015 Canadian federal election by riding, but that's not what this is. This is the closest results from the 2011 election when adjusted to the new boundaries, according to ... somebody (some of the linked articles reference http://www.punditsguide.ca , which gives me a database error; SportingFlyer gives a working link to the website of a Canadian professor of political science). I don't see how this is notable as a topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 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 Draftify. I have deleted and moved it to draftify per request of creator. Missvain (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SwissBox daytrading[edit]

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

This article cites two sources, neither of which mention the article topic. I've searched and the only additional sources I can find are a selection of blogs and social media posts on day trading - nothing reliable. I think this fails WP:GNG (and probably WP:NOR) and should be deleted. Update: While I was looking for sources two more cites were added: One is to a company trying to sell software that implements this, and the second is to a youtube video posted by the same company. Neither strike me as reliable or independent sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. It is not about purchasing a product is about a method of trading. Traders could learn a lot about market just watching. The Swissbox is not a software for purchase. [*W∞M*] easy 17:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC) A book on trading, trading experts and the Swissbox will be available in bookstores on the 18th this month.I will add this as soon as the book is available. [*W∞M*] easy 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author of the book? Who is the publisher? How do you know about this? - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are two known financial authors Thomas Klußmann & Christoph Schreiber. I was invited to get a copy soon. As I am a trader and since more than 25 years member of the German Journalist Association DJV, I know a couple of authors in person. [*W∞M*] easy 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) The book will be available on amazon. ISBN-10 : 3947473117 ISBN-13 : 978-3947473113 Publisher : Digital Beat GmbH.[*W∞M*] easy 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital beat looks to be a self publisher, and according to google the authors have business ties to the vendor mentioned above, 'Tradersclub24'. Are there any sources that are independent of Tradersclub24? - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links to the Tradersclub24 as the intention is not to suggest any purchase. It is about a method of trading. As described in the article on FX Trader Magazine. Usually I can see in the Wikipedia who I am talking to... you probably have no time to write any article as you are busy to rollback. In any case have a Nice Christmas Time. [*W∞M*] easy 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W.Mechelke, As described in FX trader magazine - in an article written by an employee of Tradersclub24. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There is not enough information from independent sources. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apply to move the article to my namespace until other sources are available that are considered independent. [*W∞M*] easy 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is also arguably WP:OR/promotion for someone's stock-trading system. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 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. czar 15:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Gallagher[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the basis that Gallagher passes WP:NFOOTBALL, however, he does not as UCD has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL. The PROD rationale was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per this, this and this. During a WP:BEFORE search, I found no significant coverage so fails WP:GNG too. Spiderone 14:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. Only sources I can find are passing mentions of a type expected for a sportsperson of this level (match reports, squad lists, team/player profiles, etc). Nothing substantive. As a player (for a few seasons) in the League of Ireland Premier Division, I looked in the main Irish newspaper of record, the Irish Times. A search in that newspaper returns only 2 results. Both of which are trivial/passing mentions of the same type listed above. Which establishes the basic facts (subject was a football player for UCD), but does not establish notability. In particular I can find no in-depth coverage of the subject as a primary topic in a reliable/independent source. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:04, 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 redirect to List of Catholic schools in New York. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Elementary School (New York City)[edit]

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

It takes a lot of notability to justify having an article on an elementary school, and that threshold is not met here. The coverage is more passing notice that it was closing than anything else. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are required to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG and this one clearly doesn't. Spiderone 16:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. It was the only school that Al Smith, a major political leader and presidential candidate in the 20th Century, ever completed. That alone makes it notable, because it was held against him; not until 2020 did a second Roman Catholic get elected President. It's still used as an upscale private (although technically not parochial) school. There's plenty of book sources available. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Catholic schools in New York: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Notability is not inherited from notable alumni. I considered a redirect to St Joseph School Chinatown, but this also lacks notability. List of Catholic schools in New York is a reasonable target for this and St Joseph's. // Timothy :: talk 22:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Disclosure: I BOLDLY redirected St Joseph School Chinatown to List of Catholic schools in New York. If there is an objection, please either revert or post at RfD and give me a courtesy ping. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 23:11, 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. czar 15:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Chugh[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete young politician with no remarkable work done to deserve an article. He has not held any major public post. Congress Youth wing post is not enough to get an article. Lack of source covering the subject in detailWalrus Ji (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his level of student leader positions do not rise to making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 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. Feel free to discuss merge on the appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Star Markets[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage of this chain. Only trivial mentions noted that do not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. ~RAM (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This was a brand of David Pender's grocery business which was huge in its day with hundreds of stores. This also covered at Colonial Stores and so there's some scope for merger and perhaps retitling. As their heyday was pre-Internet, sourcing isn't easy but there seems to be enough, including an entire book about about Pender and his business. WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. There are numerous Newspapers.com articles about Big Star Markets. Here are several Newspapers.com articles and a book source I found:
1. "October 31, 1940, edition of the Daily Press". Daily Press. 1940-10-31. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The October 31, 1940, edition of the Daily Press contains multiple articles about Big Star Supermarket:
  1. Hostesses To Have Major Role In Opening of New Big Star Market Here
  2. White Blocks, Black Trim, Form Super Market Facade
  3. Coffee Made At New Store
  4. Trained Staff For Big Star
  5. Beauties Check Packages at Big-Star Market
  6. Car Offered By Big Star
  7. Parking Lots Aid Shoppers
  8. Food Variety At Big Star
  9. New Big Star To Be Opened
  The articles are very positive but that may be how newspaper articles were written at the time.
2. "August 18, 1938, edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1938-08-18. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The August 18, 1938, edition of the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains multiple articles about Big Star Supermarket:
  1. City's 5 Big Star Super Markets Please Shoppers
  2. Buying Easy as Raiding Ice Box At the Five Big Star Markets
  3. Big Star Markets To Please Tastes of Entire Family
  4. Big Star Markets Sell Free Coffee
3. Atkinson, Carla (1988-03-10). "Getting groceries gets tough: Senior citizens stuck after Big Star buyout". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22 – via Newspapers.com.
4. Pendergrast, Lolo; Rhee, Foon (1984-01-01). "Harris-Teeter Acquires 3 Big Star Stores In Charlotte". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Big Star's parent company, Grand Union Co., has closed 35 stores, including Charlotte Big Stars on East Independence Boulevard and North Graham Street. Locally, Big Star officials estimated the stores controlled 5.4% of the grocery market last year, compared with an 8.5% share a decade ago. A Knight Publishing Co. (KPC) marketing survey of independent food brokers and manufacturers, however, estimated Big Star's 1982 share at 3.4%."
5. Thompson, Stacey; Wade, Bethany (2014). Greenwood. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-4671-1292-5. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
  The book notes: "Book Star Food Stores. Big Star was a chain of grocery stores that began in 1937. Created as part of the David Pender Grocery Company, Big Star's South Carolina stores were sold to Harris Teeter in 1988."
Cunard (talk) 08:14, 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. czar 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorroid Ó Mórdha[edit]

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

No indication that the subject is notable. There seem to be two possible subjects here (the person, and the song in which the person/character is mentioned). The titular subject (the person) doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. In that, the sources do not even confirm that the subject (the person) existed. Not to mind that the person has/had any notability. The body even implies that the subject may be fictional, and may not have existed at all. And, if he did, he wasn't the person named in the title. A Google web search on the person name returns all of 40 results. Effectively all of which are mirrors of this page. A Google Books search also returns nothing. The other secondary subject, the folksong in which the person is mentioned, may be covered in the only reference here, but I cannot find it in any other sources. A single passing mention in a 2-page(?) essay (published in a single book?) falls significantly short of WP:NSONG. Guliolopez (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biographies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one source does not actually stand as enough to establish the song as notable, and the song is not enough to establish the person as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:53, 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 delete. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bhatia[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. The article was previously PRODed. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Coreykai (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notable works. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; we tend to delete most producer's articles. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 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 13:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Raman Pillai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a political party's local organizing committee in one specific area is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to make him notable for it. Notability is not established just because one brief blurb that namechecks his existence in the process of being about something else can be shown to verify that the person exists; it is established by showing numerous sources about him to demonstrate the significance of his work in the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a state level party committee chair is not enough to overcome a paucity of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL and WP:MILL. I was a county committeeman for 14 years, and attended the 2000 state committee meeting; no big deal. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 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. czar 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weronika Krystek[edit]

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

Fails GNG; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (soft) per WP:TOOSOON. While she's had some major roles in notable venues, she's only been professional for two years, all in Poland. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of refs, but coverage is in passing, and nothing here suggests meeting WP:NCREATIVE. Student bio, I'd say vanity, but seems to be written by someone without a clear COI, so let's just say WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Palian[edit]

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

the Subject of the article does not meet any criteria mentions in WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:ARTIST, or WP:MUSIC. As an actor, she had one time appearances in several TV series, two appearances in the past 10 years. Three appearances in non-notable movies in the past 10 years, befoare that your appearances a "uncredited". s a musician she surely does not meet any criteria for a wiki article. The original creator of the article also contributed her only image to wiki as his own work. Sources are poor, one of them her own page, another one is her resume as an actor. A google search return this article, her IMDB page and social media presence. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - main contributor User talk:Rkoret is responsible for several disruptive contributions that were nominated for deletion in the past 1-2 months. Kolma8 (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage at all in reliable sources. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources cited in article do not contribute to GNG and I can't find anything that would. No indication that Palian meets any SNGs that could save her. If anyone can find sources, I'd be happy to change my decision. Samsmachado (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was published in 2013 and got away all this time with very little sources. Something like this would not get approved today as it does not meet WP:BIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:02, 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) 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BiBi Jones[edit]

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

BLP1E. The more reliable sources are covering her solely in the context of Rob Gronkowski. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to edit the article, removing the above mentioned Rob Gronkowski promotion on her part, after researching further, I failed to find any significant notability, so supporting the nomination. Kolma8 (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. There are lots of sources cited, but few are any good. No reliably sourced material related to her life and career, just being linked to professional athletes. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristófer Reyes[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - has a few articles in Fótbolti but I believe he still falls short on GNG Spiderone 16:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Dalrymple (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Fails to meet any notability criteria. The research section doesn't mention anything that would meet WP:PROF; I can't find anything of which he's the first author. Also no evidence of meeting WP:ANYBIO or any other notability criteria. Article about a dude with a job. FalconK (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cite 2 is impossible to stand up - a link to a whole book. The IEEE article is a passing mention. In fact all the sources are trivial or do not otherwise carry weight. A YouTube of a presentation with 1,300 views. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Co-author of a decently-cited 18-author paper is not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and none of the other publications listed in his Google Scholar profile [28] come close to the required level of impact. The Nestle piece goes a little way towards WP:GNG notability, but it's the only one, and it's too full of vacuous fluff to be the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. BLP shows signs of the ministrations of an unskilled reputation manager. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

There is another BLP by the same creator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Fong (2nd nomination). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:05, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap[edit]

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

This software/product fails WP:GNG, Lack WP:SIGCOV. More than that, Earlier I have nominated this page for speedy deletion WP:CSD. Since it has been contested by the creator as well as another user. So, I guess an AfD discussion would be the right way to derive a general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Although not plentiful, other notable mentions in sources do exist. The potential might be there, but I'm not sure there is enough to say it is notable and worthy of getting a dedicated article yet. Uniswap is only 2 years old after all. Here are the examples I've found in a quick search: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 05:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the world of ERC-20 tokens, where half the tokens claim the same applications, I think it would be more encyclopedic for Wikipedia to attempt to cover the individual features instead of covering every single token as if it was a separate company.
In this case, the defining feature seems to be that Uniswap is is built on "liquidity pools", but we don't have any in-depth coverage of what that even is.
There is an incentive for each token to prop up itself as the one true solution, and media is apparently not discerning enough to cover the background, instead they do churnalism, re-reporting company-sourced metadata like how this-and-such token was the first to achieve 50k users, or how it was the first to apply for SEC regulation 1.8.42 (not actually a real regulation, just making an argument here).
Uniswap could mentioned in a sentence on an article on "liquidity pools". If we can't find sufficient coverage for "liquidity pools", I'd prefer Wikipedia did not cover the token at all. Since I think our less-popular cryptocurrency articles are overwhelmingly sourced with churnalist metadata instead of documenting the actual innovations.
On our page for the steam engine, do we redirect the reader to 50 articles, each sourcing press-releases from 50 different companies on how their steam engine will revolutionize transportation? No. Of course mechanical engineering is not hype-driven to the same degree that cryptocurrency is. But it isn't acceptable for Wikipedia to fall victim to such trends. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ysangkok:Generally agree, although the subject of the article isn’t the Uniswap token, rather the protocol and application as the UNI token is recent and not an inherently requisite part of the Uniswap DEX. In terms of significance the standalone article has merit but there doesn’t seem to be enough notable RS out there. Perhaps merging to another relevant article as a short snippet may make sense though? ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ysangkok:This article is about the decentralized exchange. Uniswap does have an ERC-20 token but that is not what makes it notable nor is the reason for the article. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Decentralized exchange per Ysangkok's comment. I think just this one sentence from the intro would be a relevant bit of information at the end of the Overview section there:
Uniswap is estimated to be the largest decentralized exchange and the fourth-biggest cryptocurrency exchange overall by daily trading volume, according to Bloomberg News.
Short and sweet, doesn't add any undue weight in target article given current state of notable RS on Uniswap and size of target article. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 04:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it stays "the largest decentralized exchange" it may get more coverage then get its own article. Coin (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ https://digitalbuzznow.com/meet-eyeman-the-1-upcoming-canadian-rap-artist-you-should-know/
^ "Crypto Exchange Gets Millions After Copy-Paste of a Rival's Code". Bloomberg.com. 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2020-12-01.
^ Cimpanu, Catalin. "Hackers steal $25 million worth of cryptocurrency from Lendf.me platform". ZDNet. Retrieved 2020-12-01.
^ Osborne, Charlie. "DeFi SushiSwap creator returns $14m in ETH to project after causing coin crash". ZDNet. Retrieved 2020-12-01.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to be well-supported with reliable sources. I would think that an online encyclopedia is exactly the place where a new financing tool should be listed to provide users with this information - I appreciate the information provided. At worst, I would suggest to merge the content of the article into Decentralized finance, but I am happy with the standalone article.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Add references by User:Hidden Lemon. gidonb (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Awesome. Thank you! gidonb (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uniswap is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges overall by volume (doing $350 million+ volume per day, nothing to sneeze at), and is the largest decentralized exchange. Many exchanges have dedicated articles. See Binance, Coinbase, OKEx, etc. Uniswap is only a couple of years old and has been already been covered by big news outlets that more than satisfy WP:GNG including Bloomberg and Forbes. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is just a mention. Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is now generating a decent amount of pageviews as of Dec. 11, 2020. There have been over 100 each of the past couple of days. There is interest in this topic, and I think as this article expands more it could be a great informative benefit for readers. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Pageview_stats Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a comment, not an argument for deletion or non-deletion. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source check of the current version.

These four are mentions: [29] [30] [31] [32]

The MPRA paper is not peer reviewed. See WP:Articles for deletion/Canegrati's formulae where MPRA was not good enough.

ZDNet coverage about an attack.

And this Bloomberg article.

The best source is Bloomberg. ZDNet is lesser coverage. And the rest is not good enough (mentions and MPRA paper). Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the Wiki policy where the subject of the article must be the main topic of the RS and a RS mentioning the subject is not good enough to be cited in a Wiki article? Are you saying these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS? If so, I disagree. Each cite goes into Uniswap in detail, even if the main focus of the RS's are about broader topics. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two are clearly trivial mentions [33] "ParaFi began investing in DeFi in 2018, and its investments include apps like Compound, Aave and Uniswap." [34] "SushiSwap is a Decentralized Finance (DeFi) project created by Chef Nomi based on a UniSwap decentralized exchange (DEX) fork for bootstrapping liquidity."

[35] Just one sentence.

[36] This is like two sentences about Uniswap. Coin (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article talks about a VC who invested in Uniswap and talks about how it works. It's not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. The second article elaborates on how Uniswap's code can be forked (which was a pretty big deal when it happened). The latter Bloomberg source's name is literally "Crypto Exchange Gets Millions After Copy-Paste of a Rival’s Code". The "rival" they are referencing is Uniswap. I don't see anything wrong with using either of these RS's for the information they provided. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For establishing notability, in-depth coverage is expected. After that, simple fact-checking citations do not necessarily need to be non-trivial. But this is just a discussion on the notability of Uniswap, see WP:ORGDEPTH for guidelines specifically applicable to Uniswap.

That said, context does make a difference and the only source assessments by Coin that I would disagree with are on the sources regarding SushiSwap. Because SushiSwap is virtually the same thing as Uniswap (and the first and only major instance of a rebranded Uniswap clone), an in-depth discussion on SushiSwap would be literally impossible without focusing directly on the details of Uniswap itself.

The Bloomberg article on SushiSwap, for example delves into how and why it was possible for Uniswap to be copy/pasted and how the event was a sorta wake-up call for DeFi. It would be like saying an in-depth article about Bitcoin Cash doesn't display the notability of Bitcoin. But the rest of the sources mentioned do seem trivial though. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Decentralized finance. DeFi without Uniswap is almost like Hamlet without the Prince. You could argue for a merge into DeFi. But the largest DEX in the world should be notable on its own. There's also this journal article:
- Guillermo Angeris et al. (2020-06-19). "An Analysis of Uniswap Markets". Cryptoeconomic Systems Journal.

(Only on Wikipedia can you have unchallenged permastubs on tiny villages nobody has ever heard of. But when you're the biggest entity in a certain category, there's all sorts of pedantic nitpicking as to whether you're truly notable.) Spellcast (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spellcast: One of the contributors to that article is Charlie Noyes from Paradigm, Inc. which invested in Uniswap. Three other contributors are from Gauntlet Networks, which Paradigm invested in.[37] Coin (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some additional RS's referencing Uniswap. Some of them are just mentions, and the last one talks about it in some detail. I don't think these all need to go in the main article but it seems evident that Uniswap is notable (Forbes has referenced them already twice this month). HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ^[1]^[2]^[3][reply]
Keep. The Forbes sources are both from staff writers. The Bloomberg sources are good. There's independent coverage. Article really ought to be subject to a rewrite, but this does not make it non-notable. jp×g 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very promotional and would need a big rewrite, but also the only claims this has to notability are ephemeral. Maybe as time wears on there will be some reason to remember it, but these businesses come and go frequently and the coverage of this one is minimal for what might be expected of something major. FalconK (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's an entire Bloomberg article devoted to Uniswap, along with several other Bloomberg, Forbes and ZDNet articles that talk about it. Also, what in your opinion comes off as promotional? If something does, that was unintentional. I can reword it. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bloomberg and ZDNet are reliable sources that are accepted for showing notability. Therefore, meets GNG. Perhaps some rewording of the Overview section is in order to make it less promo, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP; it's nowhere near egregious to the level of WP:TNT. Clear pass of our notability guidelines, and that's all that matters here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various RSes with okay amount of coverage. Don't see problem on this. Gerald WL 17:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely notable, including sources like Bloomberg [38] I was looking for info on Uniswap (as a reader) and the article was helpful. It is disappointing to see it nominated for deletion, when the article is useful and the topic is notable. Aude (talk) 03:26, 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. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaghmai[edit]

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

Not notable, lacking reliable sources, vague and not encyclopedic. Candent shlimazel (talk) 19:39, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of the family members listed may be notable, but the family itself does not appear to be notable. I can't read Persian, but the sources appear to be from the family itself, which would make those sources unreliable. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - a not so large family with one notable member. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Discipline[edit]

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

a number of very minor awards "felicitation"s -- no major ings pp no indepth coverage for either their architecture or their design. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this barely qualifies to be notable.--Blurz (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received few notable awards from Government of India. Passes GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:56, 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) 00:44, 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 07:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

felicotations is a mention, not an award. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - even if everything is true, they are a partnership with one notable commission. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanwarey[edit]

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

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. Current sources are either announcements or passing mentions and I can't find anything better. GSS ^💬 06:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a full review of the film from Dehknews referenced in the article but i'm not aqainted with that source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how it can pass WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFILM and GNG on balance of what's available Spiderone 13:59, 24 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) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allard, California[edit]

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

Only sourced to Durham, not on topos, newspapers.com results are last names and a furniture dealer in Bakersfield. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG do not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 15:05, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt Airways[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, a stub for long time . Not a notable movie. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE shows only data base sites and directory listings. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This film was reviewed by The Indian Express (see here), but that's not enough, as we need multiple reviews in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFO. The film is in Punjabi language. So it would be helpful if some Punjabi speaker can search for sources. But as of now, I support its deletion. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:46, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 Mile House, California[edit]

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

WP:GEOLAND does not seem to be met. Does not seem to appear on topographic maps. This calls it a stage station now covered over by an alfalfa field. The other three newspapers.com hits for "18 Mile House" in Kern County, CA call it "the 18 mile house", indicating a single building. GEOLAND isn't met, and neither is WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was 1 building, and the building does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Southgate (actor)[edit]

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

This article shows no clear pass of the actor notability criteria, it is unclear any of his roles were significant. beyond this the article has zero reliable sources, IMDb is not a reliable source and we are not supposed to have biographies of living people without reliable sources. The article has been tagged with a notice of this problem for 9 years. The article has existed for 10 years. It is high time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for what it is worth the creator of the article only made edits to this article. His first edit was thus creating the article. I really think we need to go to making every new article go through the articles for creation process. If not that we should at least stop allowing editors to create a new article on their first edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has some roles that seem notable enough for the purposes of WP:NACTOR, like his role in High Strung, and he seems to have done some stage work, too—for example, The Dogs of War: https://www.londontheatre1.com/theatre-news/richard-southgate-stars-as-johnny-in-the-dogs-of-war/. The article certainly needs work, but I don't think deletion is the only option here. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:56, 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) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though he does have some moderate sized parts in a few films, this article cites zero references and I can't find any myself. Honestly, if there was significant coverage I would have a possibly opposite opinion, but there is really nothing of him on the internet, therefore failing both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. On top of it, this might be a self-published piece, as the creator of this article has only edited this one. Coreykai (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this completely and utterly fails WP:GNG and looks most likely to fail WP:NACTOR as not one of the roles appears to have been significant. We're not talking about a 'pre-internet' actor here; if his roles were that significant, it shouldn't be nigh on impossible to find any mentions of him Spiderone 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He was born in 1990, so everything will be quite recent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes it all the more remarkable that there's practically no coverage on him. This article, if retained, will be a permanent IMDb mirror and nothing more. Spiderone 18:32, 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. Sandstein 09:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft, aircrews, and weapons for aircraft carriers during World War II[edit]

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

A good example of WP:NOTESSAY. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we wanted to preserve an article as a demonstration of WP:NOT, you could easily pick this one. Not enyclopedic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the data on Japanese naval airman Kondo is much more detailed than at our article, and needs to be copied over before this essay is deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Bryantbob (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Is the entire article viewed to be in violation or just some sections or paragraphs? Can the offending sections or paragraphs be discussed in the article’s Talk page to resolve issues rather than deleting the entire article? The introduction is a brief summary, based upon secondary sources authored by respected historians, about naval warfare in general and specifically about how battles on the oceans affected the outcome of World War II. I added some text to the beginning of this section to clarify that the assessments made are by such experts, not by me. This section might be compared to Wikipedia articles about “Causes of World War II” or “Armored warfare.” The sections on carrier aircraft compare the features and performance of naval aircraft used extensively during World War II. The comparisons are based upon secondary sources, which are cited. These sections might be compared to the Wikipedia articles about tanks such as “Tank”, “Tanks in World War II,” or “Comparison of early World War II tanks.” The sections about pilots include partial biographies of noteworthy people with emphasis on their wartime contributions as aircraft carrier aircrew. The biographies of two of these people are already included in other Wikipedia articles but not in the detailed context of World War II aircraft carrier operations, which is the focus of this article. These sections might be compared to the Wikipedia article about “Michael Whittman,” a World War II panzer ace.[reply]
Delete. Part of this could be salvaged as List of World War II carrier aircraft or as a section in List of aircraft of World War II, but overall it's just in too poor shape to fix. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed or revised content that might be viewed as my personal opinions rather than those of the historians cited as sources and removed or revised content that may appear to be more like story-telling rather than history. I believe the article is now in compliance and an integral part of a larger article about aircraft carrier operations during World War II that was broken up into several parts because of the length of the subject matter.Bryantbob (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should copy the content regarding Kondo and Laurie to their relevant pages. IMO this page will be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Laurie is utterly unnotable. The only sourcing for him is his own, privately published book. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But the intent of including the experiences of him and the other pilots with the series of articles on aircraft carrier operations was to show the variety of aircraft types, combat assignments, and geographic locations involved for the carriers and their squadrons. Laurie and Kondo served throughout the war and their experiences encompassed many of the important operations in which carriers and their squadrons participated.Bryantbob (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Lindsey, not Laurie, Laurie doesn't have a page, nor should he. Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's job to pick a few individuals as an illustration. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Points well taken. Thank you for the comments.Bryantbob (talk) 16:23, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tareq Salahi[edit]

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

With 91 references and two failed AfDs, this article doesn't seem to be a strong candidate for deletion. But a closer inspection of the content of article and references reveals that it is just a WP:BLP1E pluff piece. The person came to prominence with the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches incident and most of the coverage relates to that. Some other references relate to routine coverage of lawsuits and appearances in some reality shows. There is nothing of substance to suggest that this person meets the notability criteria for people (WP:NBIO). Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I read the older discussions and my take is that this person seems to be notable for a lot of small things. It maybe be that each of the things he is notable for is not enough, but taken together, I definitely thinks he passes the notability threshold. Someone in the old debate wrote that the was a publicity slut. Perhaps true, but apparently a very successful publicity slut. ImTheIP (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per other discussions, he passes notability. As WP:NTEMP notes, if he was once notable, he continues to be notable. Meanderingbartender (talk) 10:33, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleta, California[edit]

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

Yet another long passing siding with little relationship to what's around it, though it appears to have once had a spur leading into an adjoining factory. In any case, no sign of a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topos show a siding and a spur, newspapers.com results are names and a railroad point. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 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) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Mia[edit]

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

Though I cannot read some of the references, they would seem to be merely promotional announcements. None of his positions implies notability , or is likely to give rise references that would show it. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references are indeed insignificant coverage but the office he holds is influential and passes WP:NPOL in my opinion. Comparing with other notable offices: secretaries to the government are two levels above city mayors in the official order of precedence in Bangladesh. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other governments, the consensus has been that the of a department -- in this case, it would be Minister-- is notable, but not those one step under. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The five "news" articles were all published on the occasion of his promotion to secretary, and are based on a press release from the Information Ministry. The footnotes to WP:N tell us that, "It is common for multiple newspapers ... to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works." The five amount to one source, and not an independent one. The sixth source is the same official biography, this time hosted on the Ministry of Information's website (his employer, so not independent). There is zero independent coverage of this civil servant in reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not an extension of the Government of Bangladesh's web portal, and our notability guidelines do not reflect any official order of precedence. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 16 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) 02:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so just to clarify, heads of federal govt depts are not presumed wikinotable? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Federal" suggests you have a particular country in mind, perhaps Australia, the US, or Canada. I can't speak to them, but do specialize in Bangladesh, which doesn't have a federal system. We're not dealing with the minister, commonly an MP and a member of the cabinet. Nor with their second in command, the state minister, also usually an MP. The office in question is secretary, number three at the ministry, filled by a civil servant, not a politician, so WP:POL does not apply. The nutshell explanation of notability (people) is, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Although the press in Bangladesh is nominally free, when the Ministry of Information distributes a press release, newspapers publish it. The subject has received zero coverage in arms length sources, so Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about them. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the explanation, delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 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) 01:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Smiga[edit]

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

His role in Between Floors (a film with its own dubious notability) might be significant, but other than that, a working actor who doesn't pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An individual passes WP:NACTOR is they [have] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. His roles in Between Floors, Hellion, and Friday Night Lights satisfy this. KidAd talk 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best he only has one significant role, and it is less than clear it was actually in a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 15 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) 02:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see even one significant role in one significant film. (There's a Smeagol joke in here somewhere, but lost it is, my precious.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert's comment above. Kolma8 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing does not exist to suggest that his roles are notable, and thus a WP:BLP is not warranted. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles in Hellion and Friday Night Lights are not significant. Between Floors is not notable, now at afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 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) 16:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glovertown Museum[edit]

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

Not a notable museum or relevant on a provincial or national scale.--UserNL2020 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is long past time Wikipedia stopped having articles sourced only to the subject's own webpage. We are not a lightly annotated directory of the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with [Glovertown] to add some more information to that small town. Might be leaning towards a delete otherwise as it adds little in any case. CutieyKing (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Glovertown. As a potential tourist attraction, it should not be deleted completely. However the opening times should be removed and replaced by a link to a website (which the museum will presumably keep updated). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Went to close this as merge but there's nothing sourced to merge. We cannot "add [noteworthy] information" when none exists. czar 15:19, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanny Romero Infante[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person, which literally just states that he existed, the end. It says absolutely nothing of substance about his career to determine whether he would have a credible notability claim under our inclusion standards for either journalists or activists at all -- and for sourcing, all it contains is two different news articles announcing his death, which is not enough coverage to get him over the "notable just because media coverage exists" bar in lieu of having to provide any substantive reasons why he might be notable. Both in substance and sourcing, it takes more than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the es.wiki article shows sourcing and notability so it just needs tagging and expansion, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SIGCOV. With literally three clicks, I found two reliable English-languages sources. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 14 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) 01:49, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.R.C.H.I.E.[edit]

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

per WP:SUSTAINED, this film only received coverage in the context of Fox being cast in the film, the film itself did not receive any notable reviews or critical coverage BOVINEBOY2008 01:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the Variety and Deadline Hollywood articles show enough to make it pass WP:GNG Donaldd23 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some reviews, two of which are for the sequel. I think that if we include info about both the first and second film, there's enough notability to argue for a weak keep. It's not the strongest sourcing out there, review-wise, but it is just enough at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasons by those given above who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donaldd23 and ReaderofthePack. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the amazing review finding. I withdraw this nomination, but if you see more/better sources, please add! BOVINEBOY2008 01:01, 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) 16:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HomeBank[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability since October 2008...the oldest notability tag on Wikipedia. Lets finally get a consensus as to whether it is notable enough for an article (and remove the tag) or whether it isn't notable at all and should be deleted. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concerning the Amiga version, there is a short 1/2 page article in Amiga Format 113 (August 1998, pp. 47-48) and 1 1/2 page review in Total Amiga 15 (Summer 2003, pp, 39-40) - though I´m not sure about RS status of the later one. There is also a 1 page review of the AmiCygnix version in the Amiga Future 98 (September/October 2012, p. 23) and some short news on amiga-news.de. I expect similar coverage in the Linux related media (eg. this LinuxFormat/TuxRadar piece from 2009: [39] and c't magazine 21/2017 p. 136 - behind pay-wall [40]). I think right enough to satisfy GNG. I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (I hoped to do that during the last weekend, but playing video games takes too much of my free time). Pavlor (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, in addition to those listed by Pavlor above, reviews by TechRadar - here, News Break - here, and H2S Media - "Best Free & open source personal finance management software 2020", Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 9 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) 01:41, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Heller[edit]

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

Instagram personality fails GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources show significant coverage from reliable sources. Rogermx (talk) 02:15, 10 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) 01:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Subjects references do show notability. The nomination isn't clear or true, as for one, the subject is not an actor so WP:NACTOR does not apply, and two, the subject passes WP:GNG like the nomination said it didn't. As for WP:FILMMAKER, Heller does closely pass all of the criteria needed. Then again, per the nominations rather false arguments, it should be kept. Coreykai (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few more sources as I found lots more info in Google. I believe this page is a weak draft and needs improvement. A few sources are in depth and all are from credible publications.Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs some clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:FILMMAKER with reliable sources indicated there. 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 delete. Sandstein 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symphorophilia[edit]

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

Could not find any in-depth sources— most online mentions are simple definitions or references to Crash (J. G. Ballard novel). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there’s no point in having an article that consists solely of a word’s definition and etymology. Dronebogus (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While available sourcing is better than the usual philias only sourced to UrbanDictionary (this one is in the American Psychological Association dictionary (https://dictionary.apa.org/symphorophilia]), it simply is not a philia actually described in any literature apart from some dictionary listings, zero hits on pubmed. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits doing a Scholar search. This article needs some improvements without doubt, but the term is useful to have in an encyclopedia if a little more detail could be added.--Concertmusic (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment did you actually find any in-depth information or was it just the two categories I mentioned above? Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 15 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) 01:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a look at what sources there might be and concur with Þjarkur that there's basically nothing out there beyond bare dictionary definitions or the primary source. This is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 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 keep. Approaching WP:SNOW territory, although the desirability of improvement, to the extent possible, is noted. BD2412 T 01:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your / the criteria for notability? There are plenty of software products documented in Wikipedia that have limited audience. This is one of the largest enterprise backup products in use, and if you're considering deleting its page, you should consider deleting every other product on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backup_software . As per Wikipedia guidelines, an article needing improvement is not a valid reason for deletion. IBM recently deleted a large amount of their own web structure, which impacts sourcing somewhat.

Xaminmo (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. I will try to remove other non-notable articles in this category. Please, be aware that Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources so IBM is not an independent source. If you find some independent sources, please add them to prevent deleting this article. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article seems to be not notable due to the lack of independent sources, and should be deleted. The fact that other software-related articles may also lack independent sources doesn't make this article notable.PopePompus (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer; this is a product I am familiar with. I believe I applied the same standard to it as to other things I have voted on recently) A google book search returns a plethora of hits, most of which are primary, but there are also independent hits like this one. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Implementing_Backup_and_Recovery/_DqO6kizEDUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22IBM%20Tivoli%20Storage%20Manager%22%20-wikipedia there are also several review found in Google News, I did not go through them all, but to me it looks like a notable product.
Keep Notable to be sure in its field, and a very possible search term for WP readers - this product should have an encyclopedia article here.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:47, 15 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) 01:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into other articles on IBM products, at least the history of the product is obviously of encyclopedic interest. The product's current instantiation may not be very interesting to us as an encyclopedia (although potential additional sources are mentioned above). jp×g 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve. The article has several problems, for sure, but the product is 'real-life notable', that's just not currently borne out by the very weak references. A lot of work to be done, but worth trying to salvage IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are entire books written about this subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 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. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in the Original Free Will Baptist Convention[edit]

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

Nothing about these churches are notable and reads more like a directory. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. NavjotSR (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a textbook case of NOTDIRECTORY Spiderone 18:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia is not an address book. // Timothy :: talk 18:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a directory. Poydoo can talk and edit 18:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Amongst Wikipedians, few concepts have as strong a consensus that directories or lists of churches, which are generally not notable, is itself not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTYELLOW. Ajf773 (talk) 01:36, 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.

^ Gara, Antoine. "From Wall Street's Greatest Trade To The Top Dealmakers And Financial Entrepreneurs: 30 Under 30 In Finance 2021". Forbes.
^ Castillo, Michael del. "11 Bitcoin And Blockchain Leaders Made Forbes 30 Under 30 List". Forbes.
^ Confidential, Crypto. "Stimulus Checks From A Crypto Exchange; Bitcoin Rebound". Forbes.

[1] H, Clara Maria Tjandra Dewi (23 November 2020). "Ketua DPP PSI Tsamara Amany Kritik Cuitan Anies Baswedan Baca Buku". Tempo (in Indonesian).

[2] Ghaliya, Ghina (11 December 2019). "Court shatters young politicians' hopes to run in regional elections before 30". The Jakarta Post.

[3] Post, The Jakarta (27 April 2017). "Ahok inspires millennials to get involved in politics: Tsamara Amany". The Jakarta Post.

[4] Hilton, Sarah (18 September 2019). "Asia's Gen Z: Three young pacesetters to watch". Nikkei Asia.

[5] Annuar, Azril (26 June 2018). "As Indonesia's 22-year-old politician calls, Syed Saddiq laments Malaysians 'too young' to vote | Malay Mail". www.malaymail.com.

[6] Kustiani, Rini (8 March 2019). "Hari Wanita Sedunia, Tsamara Amany Soal Politik & Peran Domestik". Tempo (in Indonesian).

[7] Jajeli, Rois (14 September 2017). "Tanpa Laporan, Tsamara Serahkan Penyebar Status Kawinnya ke Polisi". detiknews (in Indonesian).

[8] World, Program The (4 December 2019). "Ditanya Soal Papua di ABC TV, Tsmara Amany Minta 'Jangan Menghakimi' Isu Papua". Australian Broadcasting Corporation (in Indonesian).

[9] Media, Kompas Cyber (28 October 2018). "Generasi Milenial Diharapkan Tak Alergi dalam Politik". KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian).

[10] Hutton, Jeffrey (2 October 2017). "Young, Female, Outspoken. A Political Star Is Born in Indonesia". The News Lens International Edition.

[11] Martin Shadwick (November 22, 1989). "The Wednesday Report Index 1988". Maclean Hunter. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[12] Melissa Hemingway (August 19, 2015). "FPMag Authors". The RINJ Foundation. Retrieved November 18, 2020.

[13] Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit (January 12, 2000). "Canada House of Commons". The House Of Commons And Its Members. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[14] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons". The House Of Commons And Its Members. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[15] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[16] Hansard Transcript (December 15, 1988). "Canada House of Commons Votes and Proceedings Members Elected". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[17] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[18] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[19] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[20] Hansard Transcript (December 23, 1988). "Canada House of Commons debates Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North)". Commons Debates Hansard. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

[21] ttps://digitalbuzznow.com/meet-eyeman-the-1-upcoming-canadian-rap-artist-you-should-know/

[22] "Crypto Exchange Gets Millions After Copy-Paste of a Rival's Code". Bloomberg.com. 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2020-12-01.

[23] Cimpanu, Catalin. "Hackers steal $25 million worth of cryptocurrency from Lendf.me platform". ZDNet. Retrieved 2020-12-01.

[24] Osborne, Charlie. "DeFi SushiSwap creator returns $14m in ETH to project after causing coin crash". ZDNet. Retrieved 2020-12-01.

[25] Gara, Antoine. "From Wall Street's Greatest Trade To The Top Dealmakers And Financial Entrepreneurs: 30 Under 30 In Finance 2021". Forbes.

[26] Castillo, Michael del. "11 Bitcoin And Blockchain Leaders Made Forbes 30 Under 30 List". Forbes.

[27] Confidential, Crypto. "Stimulus Checks From A Crypto Exchange; Bitcoin Rebound". Forbes.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]