Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 18	December 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. G7: author request, no other editors. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 UNAF U-20 Women's Tournament[edit]

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

It's me who create the article and this is about the 2020 UNAF Women's Tournament. My apologies for my mistake. Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:26, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar Sarpotdar[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced and doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article needs citations but the subject clearly passes WP:NPOL. He was a representative in the Lok Sabha.^[1] Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aklekar, Rajendra (21 February 2010). "Sena leader Sarpotdar dead". Hindustan Times.

Keep passes WP:NPOL.Note his name as per Lok Sabha website is Madhukar Sirpotdar bio profile.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree, he passes WP:NPOL. Member of Lok Sabha is a notable elected position.Walrus Ji (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but members of national legislatures cleanly pass WP:NPOL #1. The question of whether they have press coverage or not is very separate from the question of whether we have actually found and used all of their press coverage or not — and that's especially true for a person whose term in office was decades ago, such that their press coverage won't Google very well and instead will have to be retrieved from microfilms or news databases or archives. There are certain notability claims that we consider "inherent", meaning that as long as they can be verified as accurate the person gets to have a Wikipedia article even if the current state of sourcing in it is inadequate, and being a national legislator is one of those. So by all means tag this for {{refimprove}}, but it's not deletable as his service in an inherently notable role is plainly verified. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear NPOL pass – while I'm not unfortunately not proficient in the relevant languages to search myself, I think it's reasonable to assume that non-English (and potentially offline) coverage exists. Blablubbs|talk 23:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a MLA, meets NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camellia Garden, Virginia[edit]

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

This one's a bit odd, as apparently the GNIS coordinates are wrong, as they're taking me to the middle of a forested park. Most of the coverage that turns up is for a botanical garden in Norfolk. What I'm finding evidentally referring to this place in Charlottesville is real estate listings, including this one which calls Camellia Garden a subdivision. Subdivisions are generally considered to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is not met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything says "NN subdivision." Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. There are over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia mass-produced like this one (and those in California) with only a single useless line sourced to the unreliable GNIS. List of unincorporated communities in Virginia is mainly CDPs but a redirect/merge of most of the non-notable Virginia places that have not been improved in the last decade to somewhere would be better than hundreds of individual time-wasting AFDs for subdivisions/vague neighborhoods/non-notable places. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 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) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manolo Otero[edit]

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

Poorly referenced stub about a non-notable singer/actor, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. I would normally have speedied this, but that was tried and rejected, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jeez you guys don't give up do you? Go ahead. Delete the article. But when you do, be sure to also remove all of the links to it to avoid all the unsightly redlinks. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This particular article is hideous because it only says that the singer recorded one Christmas song that was not even a hit single. But as seen at Spanish WP ([1]) there is more to say about him, and basic directories like Discogs etc. list a lot of works from a lengthy career. Alas, the sources at Spanish WP are themselves dim and unreliable, and it seems that significant media coverage eluded him. As a pre-Internet singer he could possibly be found in Google Books sources, but all I found there are brief magazine mentions and name-drops in lists of similar singers. Modern online coverage consists only of social media chatter from fans and a few announcements of his death in 2011. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was very successful for the main song he released, and did record more albums after, so there is definitely some notability there. If he was a modern artist, he would definitely be more covered and would be kept, there are most likely more sources, at least give it a chance by draftifying. Also agree with Dondervogel 2 on how so many people instantly attacked this article as being overly aggressive, especially for a very recent page creation. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly passionate about this article either way, but the above vote is screaming for a link to Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. I would not be opposed to Draftify so someone can find those supposed sources without embarrassing public Wikipedia with a half-baked article. Same for Spanish Wikipedia too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources in Spanish. Here's one stating 10 million sales in Brazil alone. As far as I know he was more successful in Spain than in Brazil. There must be sources in Portuguese too. Dondervogel 2 (talk)

Keep. Multiple albums with major labels, EMI and Columbia. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep selling 10 million recordings in Brazil and recording on major labels are definite signs of notability. The article has a better chance of improvement in mainspace as some of the public interested in this man may edit and improve the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

Armenia and Kosovo don't have any relations; WP:CFORK of International recognition of Kosovo. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything that is notable about this non-reliationship can be briefly mentioned on one or both of the articles about the country. We do not need an article about something that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have an article for International recognition of Kosovo, a diplomatic relationship that doesn't yet exist is not notable Spudlace (talk) 13:06, 25 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) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Colchin[edit]

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

PROD removed.

Totally non-notable cricketer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. He is known to have played cricket, that's about it. The source (Ashley-Cooper) refers to him as John Calchin on p.83, but there is no indication whatsoever within it that he has a brother. The fact about being transported is verified, but thousands of men were transported and that doesn't make them notable of itself. His name then appears in two lists of players: one on p.53 and one on p.67 - neither add anything to what we know (you can review the source here - it requires flash and is odd - searching for Calchin will help) He is not mentioned at all as playing in a single-wicket match in 1748, despite our article telling us he did (p.52).

None of the matches he played in are considered first-class cricket so he fails WP:NCRIC spectacularly. This seems to have been part of an attempt by an editor to list every possible cricketer they could find in any source from the mid 18th century. Given that only one source has ever been presented to support the article, I have no idea why his name is spelled differently. CricketArchive (which does have an entry on Robin Colchin) has no entry for a John Colchin or any for a Calchin. There is no notability at all that comes anywhere close to meeting the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per nom, this comes nowhere close to meeting GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Robert Colchin as he certainly played on his team and it appears that he was his brother. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the source given, Robert Colchin's brother is not named (ref. first recorded match, p.52; listed as "—, Robin") and our subject is referred to as "Calchin" not "Colchin" throughout, so the "believed to have been the brother" claim seems to be the belief of the article author, i.e. synthesis/original research. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence in any source that they were brothers. This is pure conjecture by the author of the article based on similar names. Long Robin's brother is mentioned as bowling in a five-player a side match (top right on page 52) but there's no name and Calchin isn't mentioned in that match at all. There's no reason why Ashley-Cooper would not use his name and, given the write-up that Ashley-Cooper gives to Long Robin, there is no way that he doesn't mentioned that they were brothers if they were - and the brother he does mention (p.84) is named Robin. Why name Calchin on page 83 and then Robin as Long Robin's brother on page 84? Sorry, but this isn't close to a merge at all. WP:BEFORE got done in spades here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable in the broader context of a general global encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Mann[edit]

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

PROD removed.

Totally non-notable cricketer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. He is known to have played cricket. That's really about it. The source (Ashley-Cooper) refers to him once as Jacob Man on p.36 in a list of players from a team. That's it (you can review the source here - it requires flash and is odd).

He's not mentioned at all in the short pen portraits Ashley-Cooper provides of other players (p.83 on) and the match he played in is not considered first-class cricket so he fails WP:NCRIC spectacularly. Him being active since the 1730s is obviously pure speculation. This seems to have been part of an attempt by an editor to list every possible cricketer they could find in any source from the mid 18th century. CricketArchive has no entry for either Jacob Mann or Jacob Man that could conceivably be this chap (there's a 2018 Derbyshire league division five cricketer, but that's clearly not the same chap). There is no notability at all that comes anywhere close to meeting the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete; per nom, comes nowhere near meeting GNG. Only source is routine/indiscriminate statistical coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A completely non-notable figure who would barely get a cursory mention on a Fandom site for the early development of cricket. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not able to find any substantive reference material about this individual, just brief mentions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sport specific criteria do not trump GNG. This article clearly fails GNG. It is high time we revised cricket notability guidelines to something that actually limits biographical articles to people we have in general at least some of a picture on who they were other than the few hours they played a cricket match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it doesn't really meet the cricket criteria either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:GNG; if this went through AfC it would have been declined on the spot due to complete lack of notability; if this can be redirected somewhere then please do so but there's nothing of value to lose by deleting Spiderone 07:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:GNG. The only sources are statistical database scrapes and no biographical information exists. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Adams Cotto[edit]

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

This article was deleted under PROD but restored several weeks later after a request by the author. The article pretty clearly fails WP:CRIME: there was no renowned victim, and the crime was not perpetrated in any unusual or noteworthy way. The article also fails WP:GNG, assuming it applies, since there is only one reference and no other possible sources are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only because I originated it. I know that's not a good rationale, (to some), but I always vote to keep articles I originated. Otherwise, I'll be honest, I'd vote for delete.Antonio Born super crazy Martin (*singing Duran Duran's "Is There Something I Should Know?") 05:04, 21 December, 2020 (UTC)

Delete Does not in any way pass GNG. If people are going to blanket default note keep on any article they started, that would suggest that their vote is not considering the actual notability guidelines. I on the other hand have nominated at least 4 articles I created for deletion over the years. That is in part because I have not always fully grasped the level of sourcing we need to justify an article, but it is probably better than trying to keep any article I created just because I created it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Gallagher[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a long, long, long, long list of NN articles created by an editor subsequently community banned from new article creation, this fringe player has never satisfied any iteration of NHOCKEY, nor meets the GNG. Ravenswing 23:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The more I see articles like this the more I think we need to go to making every new article go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not played in any hockey league that confers an automatic notability freebie under WP:NHOCKEY, and the article is not reliably sourced remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG as a bypass of his failure to satisfy NHOCKEY. And yes, the creator has long been banned from creating new articles, precisely because he kept creating articles about minor or junior league hockey players without regard to our actual inclusion and sourcing standards. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

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

Five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket is no longer an achievement. It has become common since ICC's expansion of teams with T20I status and will become unmanageable soon.

It is sourced completely from a statistics website, cricinfo, lacking reliable coverage. Störm (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is a WP:FL, so maybe de-listing it would be the first course of action. Everything has been maintained and updated as and when a 5WH happens, and it isn't that common. 48 tims in 1,112 matches is about 3 or 4 times per 100 matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we do not have corresponding lists for ODIs or Tests for a reason. Per nom, the widening of T20I status has increased the number of qualifying achievements massively – there were just 27 in the 8+ years prior to 2019, followed by 20 in just 15 months following the change at the start of 2019. It is clear to see where this is going once cricket resumes a full international schedule. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is my point. Thanks for explaining the recent surge of centuries. Störm (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and rare occurrence in T20I matches, let's face it, if this list didn't pass the inclusion guidelines, it would never have got to FL. StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As said above by Lugnuts and Associate Affiliate. If it didn't pass the guidlines it wouldn't have become a FL. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and a question to others. This list was elevated to FL status in 2015. The scope of the list has increased massively since then, with the expansion of nations/matches granted T20I status in January 2019. As such, a T20I century is demonstrably not the rarity it once was (see figures presented above). Is it not the time for replacing this list with a "highest scores" list? If not, then surely that time must be near. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a rule that lists should be on "rare" things? The page is less than 100K right now, thus clearly manageable. So, we should perhaps wait for the list to actually grow, instead of going by statistical probabilities. IMO, t20is themselves are likely to be few for some years to come, and taking 5/10 in 24 balls at most remains no mean feat (RSes are likely to take notice) as long as most matches continue to take place between more or less evenly matched teams. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, but in this instance the more common the achievement, the less notable it becomes. As for size, it has increased 50% since the eligibility widened. As I say, it's very easy to see where this list is headed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly we need to work on the inclusion criteria, which has been made too wide by the ICC giving international status to all T20 matches between countries. Doubt many people care about a Uganda vs Qatar match, whereas they would care about Australia vs South Africa. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a five-wicket haul in a T20 match is much harder (and so rarer) than in an ODI or Test match, as they bowl 4 overs in a T20 compared to 10 in an ODI and unlimited in a Test match. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to pass WP:LISTN, and as per Lugnuts, going from a featured list to deletion seems a bit drastic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but this one needs to be watched. Many five-wicket hauls are dealt with in lists dealing with grounds or countries. They might be the long term solution to any problem of bloating.

However, the actual list itself is a disaster with way too much information. The table is too wide to display on my reasonably large monitor - I pity anyone coming to this on a phone. The economy rate and batsmen dismissed can certainly be removed - there is some consensus on this from previous discussions since the list made FL. These removed makes tables like this so much more usable - and shrinks the article considerably. Personally I'd also rather see the men's and women's lists combined into one list, or the title of this one changed to include the word "men's". Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Security Democrats (United States Congress)[edit]

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

This "subject" does not meet wikipedia notability requirements. lunisneko^(talk) 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely any information about this group online that isn't passing mentions and seems to have been written more like a puff piece. Jon698 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Informal nickname for a group of freshmen with vaguely related backgrounds, but it's not like they meet as a caucus or are on the same committee or anything. Reywas92^Talk 00:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading the article, I find it rather ridiculous. Seven people in congress for two years, two of them loosing reelection so be gone soon, so two new members were added to replace them in their group of "seven". Not really much to them. The part about The female members refer to themselves as "the badass women". seems rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 09:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article surely has nothing to do with the subject. Tessaracter (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the arguments above are more left wing wiki bias. The Squad and Justice Democrats have their own article, but I'm sure you'll find some wiki loophole to rationalize that and not this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.230 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless article, does not provide necessary information. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Rafaeli-Kaduri[edit]

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

COI article which has been deleted in the past on a non notable individual who fails to satisfy GNG as she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sourcing in the article is negligible. A before search did show this but that also doesn’t show that the subject is notable. Furthermore she is a politician but nothing in the article shows that she satisfies WP:NPOL.Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in independent sources.----Pontificalibus 08:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS cited in the article, and a search can't turn anything significant up. Even searching for Israeli news sources only turns up two sources documenting her quitting a job, which is one event. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn; delete this vanity page. FalconK (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to fulfill WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion makes no policy-based argument (or indeed any other). Sandstein 21:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Pandrea (engineer)[edit]

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

There’s only one notability claim made: namely, that the subject was given an award by the Romanian Academy. However, I would submit this does not satisfy the notability requirement under WP:PROF, point 2, and here’s why: the Academy has a total of 82 (!) possible prizes. Granted, not every one is handed out every year, but still, by my count, something like 700 have been awarded just in the past decade. With that volume of recipients, I think such awards and their recipients clearly fall into the category of “prestigious but not inherently notable”. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stated deletion reason is a bit of a stretch. Artw (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Let’s unpack that, with reference to WP:PROF:

- “Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2.”

- Can you argue, preferably from independent sources, that Pandrea’s prize “confers a high level of academic prestige”? I’ve made the case that the sheer volume of such awards diminishes their prestige. I would further add that few of the recipients I’ve looked at seem to be major figures in their domains. What’s your counterargument?

- While we’re at it, I would point to the generally lack-luster nature of Pandrea’s scientific standing: impact on his field has not been demonstrated, and the fact that he teaches at a third-rate university, while not immediately disqualifying, is surely not a good sign. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage or evidence he has impacted his field beyond being a generic professor. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate preeminence in his field, and the positions and awards he's attained appear minimal especially for the length of time he's been a professor. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I share skepticism about WP:NPROF. As the subject appears to have coauthored 3 books, WP:NAUTHOR is fairly plausible. I have not found reviews in reliable sources, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:28, 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) 08:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Creek, Plumas County, California[edit]

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

A spot on the railroad and nothing more. Old topos show a very short siding; more recently that is gone, though the spot seems to still be used as a staging area for track maintenance. Mangoe (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com was tricky, I found [2] which states that someone near Chico died at Rock Creek. GMaps shows that it is 44.2 miles from Chico to the location in question, so I'm not sure which Rock Creek the article is discussing. Newspapers.com mentions a Rock Creek School district, but the Township and Range for that is elsewhere (39.8404088, -121.9745755), which is probably closer to the location of the death. Looking at the 1957 Pulga Topo shows Rock Creek just south of the Rock Creek Power House and the Rock Creek Camp. Rock Creek was probably never a significant station on the Western Pacific, the 1930 Western Pacific Map shows a station at Merlin, California, located just south of Rock Creek. However, Google Books returns [3] and [4] which both state that there was a station at Rock Creek in Plumas County, but that it was not a post office. My WP:OR is that there was a siding at Rock Creek that was used by PG&E while drilling the tunnel in the late 1940s and early 50s. I found no evidence of their being a community at this location. As no legal recognition has been found and very minor and at best trivial coverage has been found #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not fulfilled. This is a non-notable location created in bulk by a user who has created many other non-notable stub articled and never returned to update them. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 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 soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonards, California[edit]

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

This one is a weird one. The earliest topos (1930) show Leonards as a single large building near the site of the Falcon Fliers Club. By 1943, the Fliers Club is gone, but Leonards is still a single building (at a slightly different location). By 1953, both the name and the building are gone. The name is so generic any attempts to find coverage on newspapers.com or Google books find only noise, although the results for the Falcon Fliers Club make no mention of a place named Leonards. Not sure that this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. This needs some more clarity before we can say its notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 17:26, 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. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Bueno Bergantin[edit]

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

Somewhat procedural as creator (and subject) reverted DGG's move to Draft and User:Onel5969 correctly pointed out an element of WP:DRAFTIFY that I was not aware of. It does not appear that Bergantin yet passes WP:PROF per the sourcing he provided, and I cannot find anything else in searching. Incubation in DRAFT would be preferable to deletion from my POV.

Less copy paste/more legible version is here in the history. StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin" does meet WP:NPROF. Please see below:

According to Google Scholar, ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin´ has achieved 714 citations (12/19/2020). In addition, Dr. Bergantin´s research work solved the enigma of the paradoxical effects produced by L-type Ca2+ channel blockers (CCB), which was published in Cell Calcium (JCR: 4.87) and achieved the position ´ScienceDirect TOP 25 Hottest Articles´ (ranked #1 on the TOP 25 for Cell Calcium, 2013). This discovery generated 17 articles published in international journals indexed in PubMed, in which 14 of them Dr. Bergantin is the sole author; e.g. Cancer Letters (JCR: 7.36), Pharmacological Research (JCR: 5.89), Current Protein & Peptide Science (JCR: 2.52), Current Pharmaceutical Design (JCR: 2.20), Psychiatry Research (JCR: 2.11), Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (JCR: 2.04). Briefly, since 1975 several clinical and experimental studies have reported that acute and chronic administration of L-type CCB, such as nifedipine, produces reduction in arterial pressure associated with a paradoxical increase of sympathetic activity. In 2013, Dr. Bergantin discovered that this paradoxical increase in sympathetic activity produced by L-type CCB is due to the interaction of Ca2+/cAMP signalling, then opening new avenues for biomedical research, e.g. neurological and psychiatry diseases, cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Dr. Bergantin is member of several editorial boards of international journals, and has been frequently invited to be honorable guest in international conferences as well as to participating in media interviews. His last book is entitled ´The “Calcium Paradox” and its Impact on Neurological and Psychiatric Diseases´ (publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. NLM ID: 101734546).

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bergantin+lb&show_snippets=off&sort=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citation record is pretty marginal for WP:NPROF C1 in a higher citation field. There's one paper with a good number of citations (but a large number of coauthors), and not so much else. I don't see any other NPROF criteria, nor other notability. The article is in poor shape, and WP:TNT would apply even if the subject did (weakly) pass notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Single Purpose Account (SPA) will not take the very good advice that this article is not ready for mainspace, then WP:TNT is the only good alternative. We only have so much time to dedicate to this project, and deliberate abuse of the process should be met with appropriate sanction. There is still time for the SPA to request that the article be moved back into draft so that it can be improved. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 reasons: Reason 1. Does not meet WP:PROF. According to consistent results of many AfDs over the last several years, Showing a person an influence in their field requires in biomedicine a citation record containing at least two papers with over 100 each. In my opinion as ingle very highly cited paper might do it also, but very highly cited in this context would be several hundred. Generating 17 articles is meaningless, if the articles are most of them very little cited--it's fairly routine to try to build up what might look as an impressive record by subdividing publication into as many little papers as possible. The JCR of the journals is irrelevant, because even the best journals turn out to publish papers that are very little cited. In fact, a JCR of 7 means that each paper in the journal will be cited 7 times on average, which is much less than 100. Science Direct TOP 25 is a publisher's promotional device. Reason 2: The nature of the article and the intent is highly promotional. A single medium-interest discovery is not notable, so the only possible intent is to promote the career of a fairly young beginning academic who is still an assistant professor. Very few people at that level have ever been the subject of WP article. And third Although, , as User:One15969 said on StarM;s talk page "While I completely agree that it should be in draftspace, it had already been draftified once" ... AfD? " I don't think that move out of draft space was a valid move--it was performed by Leanbio39, who is not an afch reviewer, but an editor who has worked on only one article, this one, and created the article.. I think the edit history shows the promotional intent: the editor has attempted to evade our rules on what new editors can do; those rules are there for a purpose, which is to prevent articles like this from getting into mainspace. I assume it's an attempt an an autobio, and that's why we have guidleines against writing your own bio in WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG: Regarding your third, procedural, point. The AfC is an optional process and new users, once they become WP:Autoconfirmed are not required to use it when creating new articles. (Btw, Leanbio39, while being an SPA, isn't so new as a user, having edited since 2014.) It's true that someone, who is not an approved AfC reviewer, cannot formally promote/approve an AfC submission. But when dealing with their own article/draft, they don't have to use the AfC process at all, and the fact that someone else slapped an AfC template on their draft does not somehow compell them to go through the AfC process. If the user in question is autoconfirmed, they are perfectly within their rights to remove the AfC tag and then to move the draft to mainspace themselves via a page move. On the other hand, the current NPP draftification practices are procedurally problematic. WP:Draftify policy says that if a page is draftified as a part of NPP, "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD." However, in practice, unlike with AfD/Prod/CSD talk page notices, user talk page notofications about such NPP draftifications mention nothing about the right to contest the draftification. Instead the draft usually gets tagged with an AfC template and the user talk page templated message says something to the effect that when the draft is ready for mainspace, the author should push the "Submit your draft for review" button. Nothing is mentioned about either the option of contesting the move to draftspace directly, or about not having to use the AfC process if the user is autoconfirmed. These kind of practices may be well-intentioned, but in terms of due process and basic fairness they are definitely wanting, especially compared to much more robust notification and appeal (DRV/refund/CSD contest button, etc) practices used for the deletion process itself. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: DGG has omitted important information. According to Google Scholar, ´Leandro Bueno Bergantin´ has published 100 articles, which have been cited 714 times. His most cited article has 132 citations, the second most cited article has 72 citations, the third most cited article has 65 citations, the fourth most cited article has 64 citations, and so on. In fact, from these 100 articles, 20 articles are indexed in PubMed (14 as sole author). Thus, these data clearly meet WP:NPROF.

Source: https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=8qjmAgoAAAAJ&hl=pt-BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Despite the single-purpose account arguing otherwise, this is a humdrum failure to meet WP:PROF. (The citation profile is actually worse than mine, despite being in a field where higher citations are more typical, and I'm not wiki-notable.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The History will sure prove who is right, not your opinions. Finally, wikipedia is not an indexed source, and has no value as an indexed publication such as PubMed, Scopus, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanbio39 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not high enough in a high-citation field. Somehow manages to be both very promotional and an unreadably dry cv-dump at the same time, two different kinds of problem that don't usually go together. Creator name and SPA activities suggest likely autobio. Any one of these together would be good reason for deletion, but we don't even need a reason for that: what we need is a reason for keeping, and we don't have one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unlikely to be notable (I don't have the relevant notability policy to hand, apologies). There is clearly something wrong with a great chunk of promotional blah typed (or pasted) in such a way as to resemble a profile rather than an article. Agree with above. doktorb _words^deeds 04:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof not passed yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion re: PROF, and per WP:TNT. It seems to be a cut-and-paste from a resume or college web page. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Jonas[edit]

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

Apart from an IMDb profile, the article does not cite any sources. I have found not any reliable sources during a WP:BEFORE search. (This unreliable blog post contains some information about her.) Looking at WP:NACTOR, none of the criteria are met since Godspell (film) seems to have been her only larger role in a notable production. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; I am also concerned about the other articles created by the same user Spiderone 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no significant coverage, no independent secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Less Unless (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. With three roles in the early-1970s and nothing since, I don't expect anything to change with this one. KidAd talk 00:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. The one blog will not rescue this article from the need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of notability, Easily fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she had a small bit once. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR and GNG Spudlace (talk) 08:21, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Malo95 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josipa Mamić[edit]

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

~~While I'm not sure if there's a NG for handball, the subject doesn't seem to have competed for Croatia, so I doubt she's notable.~~ Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played for Croatia during the recent European Championship (front page news in Croatia) and passes WP:GNG. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like she is notable. I have also found several links and SportingFlyer has done a great job. Less Unless (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without the third place game of today she played 7 games and scored 10 gaols at the euro. [11] Therefore in my view she is notable. --Malo95 (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, has shown by SportingFlyer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has just played at the recent EC and won the bronze medal... Kante4 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Clearly passes WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettler (talk • contribs) 16:49, 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. Sandstein 21:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E*ECAD[edit]

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

Had a two month! PROD in 2006-7, so we're here. No substantive editing since then, and no evidence this was ever a piece of notable software. Unlikely search term due to the symbols in its title, and no obvious merge target. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the company. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 Sant Nirankari Mission. That there aren't enough good sources appears uncontested. Sandstein 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Buta Singh[edit]

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

Was previously CSDed and deleted as WP:A7, and even now does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Some of the sources provided in the article are not independent of him. Searches show sources that mention him trivially and no in-depth coverage found in reliable sources to qualify for GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a founder of a major religious sect with a sizeable population, I think he becomes notable to have an article on Wikipedia. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As an alternative solution incorp. into Sant Nirankari Mission. I don't see a reason for a separate article as the subject fails notability. Kolma8 (talk) 16:04, 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. Sandstein 21:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parquesur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD, no historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, no sources, this is just a shopping mall. There are about 500 shopping malls in Spain. This is just one of them. Thanks! Kolma8 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another mall, no indication of notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tendresse[edit]

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

Non-notable Moroccan rapper. Some sources (like this one) exist, but this doesn't pass like multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see, there was some news when he died. Apart from that there is no significant coverage. Chief Editor and Managing Director doesn't make someone automatically notable. Fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahi clan[edit]

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

Indian clan, fails WP:GNG. While online searches do suggest that the clan exists, such as this wiki, I can not find mentions in reliable sources. The clan is supposedly part of the Khatri caste, but is not mentioned on that page. Lennart97 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sourcing to show the clan exists, the link provided by Lennart97 is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mankoo[edit]

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

Supposed Indian clan. Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced, and I can't find any reliable source that mentions this clan. Lennart97 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SNOW. While there appears to be a British journalist with this surname, I can't find any evidence it's a caste, and zero sources about the family history. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:SIGCOV. Can't find any sourcing to show it's a caste. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Dublenco[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:ARTIST; none of the criteria appear to be fulfilled. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional nonsense. Mythological surrealism ... is author’s personal style in which images of pictures have philosophic context. Good grief. Vexations (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search finds nothing in terms of independent recognition. Possibly (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nina Buimestru, if you don't think this WP-article should be deleted, you should state why, based on WP:s policies and guidelines, here on this page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Dublenco). See also the links under "New to AfD? Read these primers!" to the right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from possibly the Biblioteca OVIDIUS thing, all the refs are WP:BLOGS. That said, it's possible the Russian and Romanian WP:s has useful refs, but I don't know the languages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is essentially translated from the RU-article. No notability + unsupported claims. Kolma8 (talk)
Delete. NARTIST requires WP:SIGCOV, which is lacking here. There's no evidence he has had many exhibits at notable galleries. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 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. Sandstein 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Between Floors[edit]

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

Non notable film. Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources. No full length reviews from nationally known critics. One source mentioned in last afd is a sps personal blog so is no good. IMDB has no other critic reviews. rotten tomatoes has no listing. Search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film, obscure festivals/awards, nothing found in a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the director has no article to redirect to. Won some very minor awards, but does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about non-notable song, fails WP:GNG / WP:NSONG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Was created only an hour ago and it already has an issue reading it may not meet WP:NMUSIC and it obviously fails WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the argument above. Kolma8 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also WP:TOOSOON. Chompy Ace 13:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NSONG; not sure if it meets any speedy delete criteria, though Spiderone 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I did first consider A9, but given how so many of the performers have their own articles, I didn't think that was applicable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON. It is a new song for a TV station. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps "Star Ng Pasko" was more worthy to have its own article, but like Wikipedia's notability policy, reliable sources are needed. Only 3 sources closely related to the subject (the Christmas song) are found on this article (Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:07, 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 bus routes in London#200–299. Consensus was to either delete or redirect, so a redirect as ATD is warranted. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 281[edit]

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

I don't see the importance of this article. There is a bit of information on this bus route on the List of Bus Routes in London page. I see that this article may be useful to some, but it is not very notable. Quoll662 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMeets WP:NOTABLE and has a few good images too. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cupper52: Can you expand your suggestion of meeting WP:N; plus the notion of "a few good images"? This is not Commons. Nightfury 20:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury: Changed my mind to Redirect or Merge with List of bus routes in London. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Dozens of mentions (mainly in local travel news articles) but zero significant coverage. Standard WP:GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London like we normally do, per Nightfury. SK2242 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Routine coverage of tender results is not significant enough and content relating to the bomb threat is not quite significant enough for a bus route to have its own article either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London; opposing deletion, this seems to be the norm when such routes are nominated at AfD. Noting the route was subjected to a bomb threat in 2005, not much else so not really notable. Nightfury 20:49, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazib Nadvi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL in spite of the article's claim that he played for Afghanistan. National Football Teams has deleted his profile but an archived version confirms that he was called up but never played. Spiderone 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman and although it’s existed since 2010, it looks too short to meet notability. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFOOTBALL and GNG failure. We don't even know what clubs he played for! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 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. Sandstein 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Tariq Bhat[edit]

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

Poorly sourced (in both quality and quantity terms) promo piece about non-notable writer, fails WP:GNG / WP:POET. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was created not long ago and fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 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 13:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Danish[edit]

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

The article asserts that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL through playing for the national team. The external link is now dead but an archived version on the Swedish Wikipedia shows that he never played. I can't find any evidence to suggest that he passes WP:GNG or NFOOTBALL in any other way. Spiderone 11:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Miserably fails WP:GNG. Gerald WL 11:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication they pass Wp:GNG or WP:NFOOTY KylieTastic (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 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. Sandstein 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Cucchiani[edit]

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

BLP with one reference, which does not verify very much of the content. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we could verify the content of the article, being on the type of advisory boards he is on is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 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. Sandstein 10:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Creperio Verratti[edit]

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

BLP with the only reference to her own website. Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete The fact that articles sourced only to the subject's own webpage can stand for 14 years is a big black eye on Wikipedia. I guess this mainly reflects how much the rush to create lots of articles in the early days blinded us from seeing the need for meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 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 speedy keep. Player has played multiple times at the highest international level and therefore passes NFOOTY. Clear consensus to keep, no realistic chance of any other outcome. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tessy Bamberg-Schitter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Lewcario (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lewcario (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lewcario (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this completely fails GNG but it does pass WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 11:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international players are inherently notable per NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - As much as I hate one line articles passes WP:NFOOTY as played in international match. KylieTastic (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She fails GNG but passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I nominated Edward Foulkes for deletion and Lewcario has put a couple of my created articles at AfD. Either in revenge or to later argue I'm a hypocrite for using other criteria to keep a GNG failing article. Dougal18 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:NFOOTY and WP:TROUT nominator for the two "revenge nominations". ser! (let's discuss it). 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 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 speedy keep. Player has played multiple times at the highest international level and therefore passes NFOOTY. Clear consensus to keep, no realistic chance of any other outcome. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Oe[edit]

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

Oe fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Lewcario (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lewcario (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lewcario (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this completely fails GNG but it does pass WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 11:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international players are inherently notable per NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - As much as I hate one line articles passes WP:NFOOTY as played in international match. KylieTastic (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She fails GNG but passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I nominated Edward Foulkes for deletion and Lewcario has put a couple of my created articles at AfD. Either in revenge or to later argue I'm a hypocrite for using other criteria to keep a GNG failing article. Dougal18 (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:NFOOTY and WP:TROUT nominator for the two "revenge nominations". ser! (let's discuss it). 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has played for the national team.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 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. Sandstein 10:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Support Grieving Students[edit]

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

Seems to be a fail of WP:NORG. Sourced solely to the website, a search elsewhere turns up a few passing mentions in RS's, mostly books, but no SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, not to mention the higher bar set by NORG. Seems to have been created by a coi editor (the coalition is led by the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement and Ncscb created the article). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found a few things, like a brief mention in Rudolph's Pediatrics and a news story about them here. Both sound more like ads then anything else though and the Business Wire article is likely payed for spam that could have been written by the organization itself or at least people connected to it. There isn't really anything else other then those two sources. Except for name drops and otherwise brief mentions. I'm going with weak delete because I'm not 100% sure about the Business Wire article though. It might be totally legitimate, but even so there would need to be another good in-depth source. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 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. Those arguing keep have not addressed the issues with the sources identified by the nominator, and supported by some of those voting delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SHI Mediwear[edit]

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

No sources with significant coverage, either in the footnotes or via Google. Fails the notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reason in my PROD. SK2242 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources of SHI
Keep I think the DRDO, Delhi Government and FICCI are more reliable than a newspaper or book.

DRDO approved and mostly use SHI's garments https://www.drdo.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/SHI%20MEDIWEAR%20_UCC.pdf.

Delhi Government gave permission to open SHI in the lockdown and purchased 30,000 PPE Kits when the COVID-19 was on the peek.

FICCI invites SHI to become a member of their committee https://www.shimediwear.com/certificate/Mr.%20Praveen%20Gulati.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulgulati1985 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't independent sources, which is part of the requirement for establishing notability. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that User:Rahulgulati1985 has a COI from being one of the Key People at the company: link (and there's some WP:SPA going on for other votes here...) MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Finnish company. Article needs some rewriting but isn't the spammiest I've ever seen.Murad9711 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish? It isn't Finnish. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People are perfectly happy to keep an article about some random cookie brand with similar issues and reference list, so it shouldn't be an issue to keep this one either Sakilmurad (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid keep rationale Sakilmurad. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SK2242 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources (despite the WP:REFBOMB). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. No notable. Kolma8 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable, and the article is arguably TNT material. Blablubbs|talk 00:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Walrus Ji's analysis of the sources as containing only brief mentions has not been contested. Sandstein 10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ayurvedic Institute[edit]

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

A private therapy school in New Mexico. It claims 80 students, but lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable sources to prove that it is remarkable enough to have an article. It should not be confused with similarly named notable school National Institute of Ayurveda Walrus Ji (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some additional sources and added 2. There are more so someone just needs to improve this.According to Women's Health article, it is the leading such school in the West.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Womenshealthmag has only a one line mention of this organisation in the entire article, which is considered a passing mention and not significant coverage as mandated by WP:ORGCRIT. The second article on Monetarycounty weekly appears to be a paid and promotional article. I believe we would need better sources to establish the WP:NORG here. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 sources, isn't that enough to establish notability, ESPECIALLY when the entire page is 2 paragraphs long? Arsonxists (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am afraid none of the sources listed pass the criteria set for organisations. see my comment above. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing does not rise to the standard set by WP:ORGCRIT. In addition, due to the nature of the organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant — to be blunt about it, we have to have a very good reason to write about garbage fake medicine. Basically, we'd need much better documentation than is actually available in order to justify this article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR'easter. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only two non-directory independent sources appear to be Monterey County Weekly and Women's Health magazine. The first is better, albeit still a type of press release; the second is a mention. This is not significant coverage in independent sources. —Paleo Neonate – 07:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing does not meet the quality called for by NCORP - that the article is short does not help. This is a non-notable organisation. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NORG as no-brainer. There is significant independent coverage in many academic sources. Some of them I found in just 10 minutes are:

Kenneth R. Pelletier (2000). The Best Alternative Medicine: What Works? What Does Not?. Simon and Schuster. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-0-684-84207-3.
Dagmar Wujastyk; Frederick M. Smith (9 September 2013). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-7816-5.
Patrick Coughlin (13 May 2002). Principles and Practice of Manual Therapeutics E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 163. ISBN 0-7020-3589-0.
Pankaj Jain (18 November 2019). Dharma in America: A Short History of Hindu-Jain Diaspora. Taylor & Francis. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-351-34526-2.
Lillian R. Brazin (2004). The Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine on the Internet. Haworth Press. ISBN 978-0-7890-1570-9. The Ayurvedic Institute was established in 1984 " to teach and provide the traditional therapy of East Indian Ayurveda " and is located in Albuquerque , New Mexico . The Web site includes.. Yoonadue (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

easy come, easy go.

[1] has only a 1 line mentioning that X is founded by Y.
[2] has three 1-line mentions.
[3] has a 1-line promo type coverage.
[4] 1 mention and interview.
[5] 1 line mention.

None of these can be considered significant coverage. Moreover theses sources are not mainstream, they are all books on fringe pseudoscience topic. I am afraid the ORGCRIT remains unfulfilled--Walrus Ji (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Walrus Ji said - without even considering the quality of these sources, these are passing mentions, there is no coverage that would meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORGCRIT, as the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is totally clear. desmay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one has overcome the points raised by PaleoNeonate and Walrus Ji. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources offered have only passing mentions. If we had an appropriate article on Ayurveda in the United States, then a merge/redirect might be OK. But we don't have such an article. Neutrality^talk 00:09, 25 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. Sandstein 10:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

70588 Frank Sinatra Drive[edit]

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

No indication that the house/building is notable as a structure other than the fact that Sinatra lived there. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Srich32977: For future AfD nominations, please be sure to fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless someone can come up with some actual notability of the house, which is WP:NOTINHERITED from Old Blue Eyes. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~No grounds for notability apparent in the article and none advanced by the sole "Keep" !vote here. Could easily have been WP:A7 speedily deleted.~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Oakshade's refernces demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources so this article subject does comply with GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would need more of a description of the architecture of the building if it's notable.The one-line listing in a tourist guide doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks quite notable. A Shout! Factory documentary covers it well.(trailer) WNYC, Architectural Digest and The Desert Sun go very in-depth on it.[12][13][14]. The book Mod Mirage has an entire chapter dedicated to its history. [15] Even JFK stayed there. Oakshade (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one citation and previous ownership by someone notable doesn't make the building itself notable as noted above -- WP:NOTINHERITED, but also fails WP:SIGCOV so far. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 00:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage easily demonstrating passing WP:GNG "one citation"? Oakshade (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great new sources listed above by Oakshade - the article could definitely bear some additions and improvements, which are possible using those sources.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)--Concertmusic (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of Fortune (film)[edit]

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

Topic does not meet WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All sources are primary sources (social media, reprints of press releases) or passing mentions of the film. BOVINEBOY2008 10:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's multiple secondary sources on the film, passing WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels of Fortune (film) (no consensus). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was already subject to a no consensus AfD recently, so giving it another round in hopes that there can be some resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article meets notability standards and it's relatively well written and sourced. I have no complaints about it. TheMovieGuy

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican television series[edit]

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

List with mostly redlinks. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, a lot of redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing at all. Puerto Rico has its own television industry, and there should be at least one page where article creation is encouraged to turn that into a blue list. I would love to see more activity on this page and see no existing problem with it outside of article creation concerns. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poorly covered area of Wikipedia, that there's many red links makes the argument stronger for developing it. List s films and TV programmes by country is standard.† Encyclopædius 12:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a problem with listing television series by country of origin; has a developmental purpose under WP:LISTPURP Spiderone 19:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only real issue here is that English Wikipedia is failing to make enough articles for notable PR TV series.★Trekker (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Then, we'd have to delete all other lists of television programs by nationality as well. Plus..I originated this article so i always vote keep on stuff I originate anyways.. :) Antonio Horrible Singer Martin (Let me know, would ya?) 05:07, 21 December, 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Tosca[edit]

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

promotional article. Meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. Not yet notable as an academic--assistant professor, highest citations to her work: 25, 24, 24, 22, so clearly not influential yet in her field, and does not meet the standard for WP:PROF

The references are all: either to her own work, to summaries of her work, to non-reliable or non-independent web sites, to local promotional new notices None are to the necessary substantial 3rd party reliable sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices, to meet GNG. .

These are two independent standards--it's possible for someone not yet meeting WP:PROF to get sufficient substantial coverage to meet GNG, but that's not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG:I don't know where you are getting those citations numbers from, but according to Google Scholar she has over 450 and her top ones are 103, 100, 80, 27. I would say close to 500 citations is notable. Are there any guidelines to state how many citations is needed to be considered notable? I don't think so. According to WP:PROF: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." So if we follow the guidelines then she meets notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While Expertwikiguy is correct on the numbers for citation counts, climate science appears to be an extremely high citation field, where thousands of citations to an author appears to be fairly common. Given this, I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2012 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I have to agree with the assessment of the cites: those are not impressive citation numbers in most disciplines (I like to note that I'm topping with several 100+ papers, and I'm a completely non-notable lazy postdoc), and especially not in climate science. I don't see an in here for NPROF criteria, and the GNG coverage is insufficient on its own. TOOSOON would be my opinion as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: change to weak keep. The NPROF issue holds, but it looks to me as if there may now be sufficient public engagement references to make a stab at GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with Russ Woodroofe and Elmidae. Also, the research she is best known/cited for is not in the same field as her professorship. I'd argue if NPROF is the criteria to be met, her eminence as a professor at SAIC is very much TOOSOON, while for NACADEMIC and GNG the sourcing is insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not yet enough for this very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Point of clarification. Hello! I'm not the original author of this page, but I am a college faculty member who led a class this semester in which students profiled scientists of underrepresented backgrounds who they believed merited a biography page on wikipedia; one of my students wrote and submitted this page as their project. (I should note that I am new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure that I'm allowed to begin this bullet with "point of clarification" - thanks for your patience with any transgressions and feel free to correct me.) With regards to this nomination for deletion, I would perhaps argue that this person's notability could be somewhat falling through the cracks of #1 and #7 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). My view is that covering one of the highest profile trans climate scientists in the US makes this biography notable on its own, though I understand that it doesn't necessary map to clear-cut notability along one of the 8 possible criteria. In terms of #1, I agree that this person's climate work alone is probably WP:TOOSOON but that her niche as a "climate scientist who now does academic work with artists" is cutting-edge and novel in her field and thus "notable" in the sense that it is on the vanguard. Unique and interdisciplinary science and science communication isn't necessarily quantified by one of the 8 notability requirements directly, but we also have evidence that discounting more unconventional forms of academic success/outreach bias Wikipedia against scientists from underrepresented groups. Thanks for reading, and looking forward to learning more! Csoconn (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That sounds like you're saying keep to me! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ha! I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote since I have a potential conflict-of-interest (supervised college project through which this page was written). Don't want to step on any toes, but, yes, I personally find this scientist sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Csoconn (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Csoconn: To have the greatest possible influence on the discussion, you might read the notability guidelines WP:BASIC, WP:NPROF, and WP:NCREATIVE, and make an argument as to why Tosca meets one them. WP:THREE is also good advice here. The admin who closes the deletion discussion will evaluate the arguments, not just count votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for those links, @Russ Woodroofe:. I had read the notability guidelines you linked but was unfamiliar with WP:THREE. I'll argue that this bio merits entry into wikipedia because this academic is has a high profile for pursuing interdisciplinary climate science-art collaborations (e.g., is a climate science communicator) AND because of her role as a high-profile as a trans climate scientist, who has been quoted in articles looking at queer rights in science. For those reasons, I think the three most important citations for this article are as follows: [16], [17] and [18], with [19] being a close fourth. Csoconn (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the current citation for the PBS profile of Tosca, "Climate Scientist Swaps NASA for School of the Art Institute," to include a readable link from an affiliate. Initial research also shows broader coverage than is currently included in the article, e.g. coverage by phys.org; "Transcending Science: Can Artists Help Scientists Save the World?" by Tosca at EOS; a profile of Tosca by Medill Reports; public engagement in The Scientist and Buzzfeed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for spotting these and for adding additional links pointing to outreach efforts! I also added one more, [20], which you mentioned but I don't think made it in yet. Csoconn (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also wanted to mention WP:BASIC, because with the additions that have now happened, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." There are now two in-depth sources (PBS and Medill Reports) that focus on Tosca in the Career section, and the PBS profile offers commentary on her career shift, which seems to help support WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE for becoming "known for originating a significant new concept." In the newly-created Advocacy section, it also appears that Tosca is not WP:LOWPROFILE, because she has given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication" and has "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for ... a cause." Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I myself voted KEEP, I want to bring to your attention that this editor may have a WP:COI, because she kept reverting my edit of the name addition "Michael Tosca" which I added as an additional birthname. 2 of the sources are using this name. Please feel free to discuss in the TALK page why this should not be added.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As I noted on the article's Talk page in response to the discussion, I do not have a WP:COI, and reverted the edits due to my interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME and WP:BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Whilst I agree citations alone are definitely insufficient to pass WP:NPROF, I think science communication work pushes the article over the threshold to notability. As an aside, we probably need a better guideline for science communicators one day... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNALIST (which is WP:NAUTHOR) does seem to fit science communicators? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Tosca meets requirements for notability in terms of outreach on science communication, science-art initiatives, and as a vocal advocate for Trans issues in STEM, academia, and media. This is evidenced by her large followings on social media, many interview requests as an expert for different media outlets, including Eos (an Earth Science academic magazine) and Buzzfeed. Mahe2020 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Mahe2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not even close to meeting any actual notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This scientist is notable for her work in advocacy and science communication. She does have a notable following on social media and is a well known trans climate scientist. She is well-known enough to be invited to speak on many major news platforms, as well as notable academic institutions. I would argue that since there aren't clear guidelines on the number of citations it takes to make one "notable", close to 500 seems as notable a number as any. Murha744 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations needed to lean towards a pass of WP:Prof#C1 varies from field to field because publications patterns vary. For a low citation field like philosophy 500 cites might suffice. The field here is very highly cited and many more would be needed. Notability will have to be found elsewhere than WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User:Xxanthippe Could you please share where in the guidelines it states this?? or is this how you personally feel? Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review records of academic AfDs of past years to evaluate consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The 2nd bullet point of WP:Prof#C1 talks about citation counts being different in different fields. A random postdoc or lecturer could fairly easily get 500-1000 cites after a few years in some fields, and wouldn't be notable at all simply on that basis. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like there is a good consensus the subject does not pass WP:PROF which I agree with. For GNG, six sources have come up. Two are non-independent, one is a passing mention, one seems plausible and two might be, but are extremely local in ways that might not be initially apparent. The EOS article is written by the subject and the coverage at phys.org is a mirror of a press release put out by NASA when the subject was employed by the organization. Buzzfeed quotes the subject as an example of 1,600 different scientists who signed an open letter. The Scientist has some more in depth coverage of the subject and should probably count towards GNG. Medhill is a student paper at Northwestern 15 blocks from SIAC where the subject works. The PBS profile seems to actually an interview with the local PBS affiliate WTTW (the author, Paul Caine, works for WTTW and that's the only place I could find the story). To me it comes down to whether the local TV interview and/or student article from Northwestern are enough, in combination with the coverage in The Scientist, to satisfy GNG. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Buzzfeed article, that of 1,600 scientists very few are likely to be trans scientists suggests to me that Tosca's voice is a notable one in the context of the article (and larger conversation about LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM). Csoconn (talk)
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 22:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sources to the article in support of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC notability, and to help show that Tosca is not WP:LOWPROFILE, including additional scheduled interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 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. Sandstein 10:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Center, California[edit]

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

This one is quite the puzzle, because it initially shows up on the topos as a string of buildings on the west side of the road, and a larger and quite a bit denser cluster to the east, very orderly arrayed around a loop road. a 196 aerial may show a few of the latter in place, but the next aerial shows nothing there, and on a topo from the 1970s the whole east side area is blank. I am tempted to conclude that the east side area was the Wallace Center, and that it was some sort of facility which was closed and removed. Searching, however, returns very little, and thresults are all clickbait or name drops. Durham calls it a locale around Taft. I just don't see how this could be notable when we can't really tell what it is. Mangoe (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on newspapers.com, it was affiliated with the Standard Oil Company in some way. There's references to "Wallace Center, Standard Oil Camp, Taft" to a Standard Oil lease at Wallace Center and a reference to "the Standard Wallace Center Camp". The issue is that none of these references actually describe the place. So I'm still unsure as to what exactly this was. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with nothing around to describe or identify this, I can't see how we can say it meets any sort of notability requirements. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 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 10:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totier Hills, Virginia[edit]

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

Can't find much about this, but it seems to be an outlying neighborhood of Scottsville. Not on topos, but GNIS is down so I can't see where their sourcing their entry from. Google maps shows a small semi-rural neighborhood outside of Scottsville, which it suggests has a Scottsville address. Newspapers.com results are only for the sale of lots. There's a nearby fancy home known as Totier Hills Farm, but I'm not finding really anything suggesting a legally recognized community here. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG do not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this was some kind of historical local name, it doesn't appear to be a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 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. Sandstein 10:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of nonlinear video games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:OLIST as an over-extensive list that would take far more effort to maintain than its encyclopedic value, similar to something like List of single-player games. Linear and non-linear are not even categories used to classify video games, as that label is subjective. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Linear" and "non-linear" itself are too vague to define. Stuff like GTA V can be a linear game if you play the campaign missions alone and then be done with it. In that sense, all games are linear except stuff like Garry's Mod, Dreams or Flight Simulator. OceanHok (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linear and non-linear are not specific categories, genres, or sub-genres. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. This is not a defining nor an encyclopaedic way of categorising games. Let's be honest, almost any 'open world' game could go in this list. Heck, even the Pokémon games could be argued to be nonlinear. These days, almost every AAA game would be in this list. Also, I don't see any reliable sources keeping a catalogue of such games so the list will always be subjective and almost definitely will be WP:OR as it will be down to us as Wikipedians to decide what makes the list Spiderone 13:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An abstract design concept is not something to create a list off, nor would most of these be sourcable. IceWelder [✉] 20:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above that I thought was a unique argument, what defines "nonlinear"? Is Minecraft part of this list, although there is ultimately no goal? What about other Sandbox video games? The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild? If (for some reason) The Last of Us Part II is on this list, why not We Happy Few? If The Stanley Parable, why not Undertale? Arguments can arise from what defines a game as nonlinear, and it will be hard to track due to constant contradiction. Le Panini ^[🥪] 07:13, 25 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 Talk That Talk/Unapologetic. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another case of a series of album tracks that fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. As stated at NSONGS: chart positions and album reviews do not justify notability, and even if third-party coverage exists: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Sources in the listed articles are limited to album reviews and a Popdust article reviewing the album track-by-track, which obviously fail notability. My suggestion is to either redirect or merge these articles into their respective parent album's articles. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Talk That Talk: Farewell (Rihanna song), Drunk on Love (Rihanna song), Roc Me Out, Do Ya Thang (Rihanna song), Fool in Love
Redirect or merge to Unapologetic: Nobody's Business (song), Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary, No Love Allowed, Half of Me (Rihanna song), Numb (Rihanna song)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge all except "Nobody's Business" and "Half of Me" - the former has some notable for being a collaboration with Chris Brown despite previous controversy, whilst the latter has some notable for appearing in multiple national music charts, and higher than the other songs. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of the discussions regarding Rihanna/Chris Brown collaborations focused on "Birthday Cake" and "Turn Up the Music" speculations, not "Nobody's Business".. For "Half of Me", while it did chart, I don't think chart positions alone warrant notability in its own right. What matters is third-party coverage regarding the song itself (such as music, lyrics, structure, significance in the album or the artist's career etc.) HĐ (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they all need to get redirected/merged, I'm fine with that too. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, HĐ (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Considering they all passed GAN, they all do have extensive info, charting and many have been performed live commentary. — Calvin999 21:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them have charted to pointlessly low degrees. Also, most of the "extensive info" is just people talking about the album as a whole. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Talk That Talk and Unapologetic. These articles, like "Fool in Love" and "Roc Me Out" for instance, rely almost entirely on album reviews, and that goes against WP:NSONG. I understand Foxnpichu's point on "Nobody's Business", but it seems like the Chris Brown coverage is about other things than this song (like the "Birthday Cake" remix). With that said, I think it would have been better to nominate these separately. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I decided to bundle all these songs because these articles are part of a series (or some series) on album tracks that seem to be fashionable within certain Music-related WikiProjects. While I understand the eagerness to write encyclopedic entries about a favourite artist's album, these have certain thematic links (i.e. some articles just copy-and-paste the "Background" section). Hope it makes sense, HĐ (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Should I change your comment inline with what you said? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, HĐ (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to respective parent albums. It doesn't matter whether they charted or not when there isn't much discussion on any of these tracks outside of album reviews. A brief mention of "Nobody's Business" is insufficient. It's also rather obvious that some of the references pertaining to albums in general were just copied and pasted into some of the pages to fill them out somewhat. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to parent albums, per the above. The information about the songs is best presented in the context of their contributing to the album. BD2412 T 05:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society of North American Goldsmiths[edit]

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

This org has been around for a while, but I could not find good sources for the article. WP:NCORP fail. Possibly (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly promotional. Graywalls (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Adventures[edit]

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

Not remotely notable. Only sources cited are IMDb and PureFlix, no reliable sources found using Google or DuckDuckGo. Dronebogus (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the primary author of the article. This series has been very difficult to track down sources since they were a flash-in-the-pan in the late 90s in American Christian (and especially Evangelical) circles. Very little about them got on the internet since their market was niche and a bit too early. The name also is very generic so it makes it hard to track down. I did find a few more sources that I will add, but most of the article content (currently) references the videos themselves which are on Pureflix in their entirety. (You can also find some pirated versions on YouTube).

Some sources I was able to dig up by searching on Google "Secret Adventures Taweel":

Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-12-23-9312230111-story.html
Baltimore Sun: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-12-27-1994361006-story.html
Billboard Magazine (on Google Books): https://books.google.com/books?id=6Q0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=RA1-PA72&dq=Secret%20Adventures%20Taweel&pg=RA1-PA72#v=onepage&q=Secret%20Adventures%20Taweel&f=false
UPI (article from 1997): https://www.upi.com/Archives/1997/04/07/While-battles-rage-over-a-TV-rating-system-aimed/1024860385600/
Goodreads (for a spin-off book series): https://www.goodreads.com/series/71909-secret-adventures
WorldCat (has the whole series from Taweel-Loos Company): https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A%22TLC+mini-movie+%2F+Taweel-Loos+%26+Company%22
Taweel-Loos Company Website (I suppose digging through the web archive would give more results.): http://www.tlcentertainment.com/consumerproducts.html
Big Cartoon Database: https://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/97281-Secret-Adventures

Justin Tokke (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more: Baptist Press article from 1993, which shows the explicitly Christian origins of the show. http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7636,09-Sep-1993.PDF Justin Tokke (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chicago Tribune: throwaway mention, doesn’t count

2. Baltimore Sun: Not a terrible source, but not great either

3. Billboard: Decent source

4. UPI: Good source

5. Goodreads: Not a reliable source, doesn’t count

6. WorldCat: I don’t think that counts as an actual source

7. Company site: Primary source, doesn’t count

8. BCDb: I guess that passes as a source?

9. Baptist Press: Decent source (a page number would have been nice though)

With the four definitely usable sources it’s at the point where I wouldn’t have bothered nominating it to begin with, but I’d still like a clear consensus on whether this passes. In the future I’d recommend adding reliable sources in quickly, because unsourced or weakly sourced articles about obscure works tend to come across as non-notable by default. Dronebogus (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Billboard source is very good, and the UPI is good as well. I think this passes GNG. The sources should be added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Die Berg Komt Er[edit]

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

A joke floated in the summer of 2011 on nu.nl. In the summer there is little news in the Netherlands so a few platforms adopted the item and some still do. This was a humorous opinion piece that was for a while promoted by the author through a by now expired website. Should be deleted per WP:EVENT and WP:SOAP/WP:NOTNEWS. Alternatively, I have no objection to a very selective merge into the author's almost empty article. gidonb (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This joke has been deleted several times at nlwiki, where it no longer pops up since 2014. Nobody carries it but us. gidonb (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a comic suggestion, with tongue in cheek commentary. It isn't serious.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there were never any serious plans here, and it is not notable as a comedic exercise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 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. czar 03:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Dawson[edit]

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

NN sports talk radio host. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. Searching finds passing mentions/ routine local coverage. MB 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one market radio hosts are not often notable, and the sourcing here clearly does not show he would be an exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have the coverage to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 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. Sandstein 10:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gray Man (Film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, article is in draftspace at Draft:The Gray Man (upcoming film) until it meets NFF criteria. This page is premature and needless to keep. Rusted AutoParts 02:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is already The Gray Man (upcoming film) which redirects here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree with the deletion. The film has not started filming, which fails WP:NFF. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Rusted AutoParts: To clarify, this nomination is for The Gray Man, correct? All context suggests this, but I was blown away when using the History tools above, and then I realized the {{la}} Tools are being provided for "ShopLocal". (Though {{find sources}} Tools seems right. -2pou (talk) 22:35, 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. Sandstein 10:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Messmer Experience[edit]

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

Unreferenced television show with unclear notability. Attempted to draftify but was reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redraftify with page-move protection to prevent the creator from moving the page again. Television shows are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — an article about a television show has to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media to establish its notability, and is not inherently entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. And furthermore, Wikipedia's article creation process does not include the page creator simply moving the page from draftspace to mainspace themselves when it's still in an inadequate and unreferenced state — article creators have to submit their draft to the WP:AFC process for review, and are not unconditionally entitled to bypass that process. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a proper article, but it isn't acceptable in its current form. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/20kids the creator has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Technically, the account that moved the page from Draft: was blocked. The page was created by a non-logged-in editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:44, 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. Sandstein 10:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DC Latino Caucus[edit]

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

Notability concerns; fails WP:ORGDEPTH. PROD removed by article creator after supposedly adding "independent sources", however, the HuffPost article is a contributor piece by Franklin Garcia, founder of the group. The IP link refuses to load for me (and doesn't appear to support anything of note), and the other reference added is a press release from the group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:G5. The article creator was a sock evading a topic-ban in this subject area. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yamla. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:34, 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 redirect to Retail marketing. Sandstein 10:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retail advertising[edit]

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

This article is not well sourced and may be non-notable -- one of the sources is dead (and I could not find an archive), one appears to be promotional, and the other may be good but may not establish notability.

It is also unclear to me whether this subject is distinct from Retail marketing, which is also a much better-sourced and more fleshed out article. If deletion does not make sense, it could make sense to merge this article into Retail marketing. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might essentially be WP:DICDEF. I don't have much experience with evaluating articles, though, so I am unsure. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Retail marketing, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging really, but if there is, then merge it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 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 03:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annie-Soleil Proteau[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, does not seem to meet WP:Notability or related criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redraftify with page-move protection in place. Television and radio presenters are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the notability test is not "does this person exist as a holder of a job?", it is "has this person verifiably won any major awards for her work, and/or received a significant volume of media coverage about her, in order to establish that her work in her job is externally validated as important?" So simply stating that she exists as a person with a job, the end, is not how you make her notable, and the creator moving the page from draftspace to mainspace themselves when it's still in a very inadequate state is not acceptable Wikipedia process. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a proper article that actually demonstrates notability — but she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/20kids the creator has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person connected with radio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being unreferenced and no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 21:02, 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. Sandstein 09:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ebacher[edit]

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

Non-notable. Unreferenced/~~BLPPROD concurrently running with this AFD.~~ Attempted to move back to Draft:Claudia Ebacher but was reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Removing BLPPROD, if it survives this discussion, it will have a reference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redraftify with page-move protection. Television and radio presenters are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the notability test is not "does this person exist as a holder of a job?", it is "has this person verifiably won any major awards for her work, and/or received a significant volume of media coverage about her, in order to establish that her work in her job is externally validated as important?" So simply stating that she exists as a person with a job, the end, is not how you make her notable, and the creator moving the page from draftspace to mainspace themselves when it's still in a very inadequate state is not acceptable Wikipedia process. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a proper article that actually demonstrates notability — but she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/20kids the creator has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the argument above. Kolma8 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all TV presenters are notable, and nothing indicates she is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being unreferenced and no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:74D2:A800:CDA:FF3B:6E23:CE98 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Editor who moved page from draft, 81282quebectelevision, has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. {{db-banned}} does not apply due to timing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:08, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Krumich[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. I don't think that the sources provided in the article are enough to indicate that this tennis player meets notability guidelines. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - meets #6 of WP:NTENNIS. Kolma8 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how he meets #6 of WP:NTENNIS. He doesn't hold any record that I can find according to the ITF. I just want to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding here of the meaning of "record". I think in this context it means holding some sort of record indicating a high mark that has not been bested by anyone else instead of the alternative meaning which is a win-loss record. A win-loss record according to the ITF would then suddenly make hundreds of thousands of tennis players notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NTENNIS and GNG Spiderone 23:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet tennis notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Birt[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears to be limited to interviews with minimal independent analysis and mere-mentions elsewhere. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A figure of highly marginal notability in the broader context of a site like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sports journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only coverage I could find was what was already in the article, which consists of two interviews. There is a Matthew Birt who is a Fish Ecologist who may be notable though. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:27, 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.

[1] Aklekar, Rajendra (21 February 2010). "Sena leader Sarpotdar dead". Hindustan Times.

[1]