Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain v Styak[edit]

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

Notability concerns. I don't find any substantial coverage of the case, and the article merely states it relates to "trust law", nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are hundreds of thousands of "cited" cases, and no indication that this is one that stands out from the typical example. BD2412 T 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editor who created this article has created many such minimal stubs on legal cases, and often they come back to flesh them out into something interesting, but this article is over two years old and the editor hasn't made any substantial exapansion of any of their stubs in the last year. I think it can be deleted without prejudice against a new more substantial article on the case being created later. Alternatively, it could be draftified, but I suspect it would be deleted six months later.-gadfium 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any indication that this is a notable case. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable, poorly cited Empire AS Talk! 07:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete- G4. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koohsarmc per Spiderone. Michael Greiner 02:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KoohsarMCc[edit]

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

A BLP sourced only to unreliable and promotional sources such as Spotify, Soundcloud, Amazon, YouTube and Apple Music. Links are directly to places where you can either stream or buy his material but nothing to actually establish notability. I found nothing better in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines. In addition to using only promotional sources, this article has a promotional tone and needs editing to be comprehensible. However, a cursory google search did not reveal any coverage at all of this musician, so I believe it should just be deleted if/until this artist fulfills criteria of WP:MUSICBIO RHirsch1770 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RHirsch1770. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - please note that this page has been deleted several times under Koohsar MC and Koohsar Mc and probably other names too. Spiderone 14:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and any applicable criteria at WP:NBIO. Probably a WP:SNOW but I'm throwing my weight in here after an editor started trying to remove the AfD templates. Pahunkat (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found another one - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koohsarmc - wow, this disruptive behaviour has been going on for years! Spiderone 19:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now there are socks involved! The editor that's been removing the AfD template has been blocked by a CU. Pahunkat (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Hopefully this will prevent him from creating this page again for a while at least. Spiderone 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fandauk Pandit Ram High School[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable secondary school, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This person is sadly making articles with no citations and is often not that well written... It's a shame because I'm trying to fix some of his articles but I do not know how to properly start since the sources that I find are very poorly translated or irrelevant. The article is also, as DoubleGrazing said, non-notable. Wretchskull (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm sure this is a wonderful school and that people love it, but the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT), article lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Sources in the article are reports from subject or government, statistical reports, database entries, and a wiki. BEFORE showed nothing that demonstrated meeting WP:N et al.   // Timothy :: talk  01:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although this is a well established school with a very decent motto, the article lacks notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonistas de la Fama[edit]

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

I can't find any materials online referring to the Puerto Rican version of the television series, which the article specifically says "should not be mistaken with the Chilean version of Protagonistas de la Fama". The article is based on the official website of the show as well as a bare dead link that appears to be an internet forum from the URI. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks notability. Contestant elimination shows generally lack notability, including those with so-called celebrities. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelic Montero[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the only significant independent coverage in a reliable source was the lead in to this interview in a local paper. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Georgian Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, tagged and unsourced for 10 years. Any sources I could find were trivial. Fails WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article lacks notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Razerpak[edit]

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

Article has had zero reliable sources for over 10 years, and there's nothing online that could help it establish notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the only source used here that is considered reliable, Gamasutra, doesn't even mention this mod at all. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero reliable sourcing available. Nothing on WP:VG/RS's searchs. No general Google news hits at all. One of five possible book hits that covers cheating is denoted as being sourced from Wikipedia. Utterly fails WP:GNG. The article itself has a bad promotional bent as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 11:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The only source I could find was Razerpak Clan on Twitter. Banned servers, bad gateways, no go. Fails WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reedless wind instrument[edit]

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

This is not a category that has any useful meaning, and is not part of the standard categorization of instruments. It seems analagous to something like "non-flying mammals". Special-T (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Special-T (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. While "reedless wind instrument" is certainly used as a descriptor for many flutes, etc. in reliable sources (especially primitive examples), but beyond a simple dictionary definition of what that term means, reedless wind instruments as a group do not appear to be discussed. The various types of reedless wind instruments are, but those already have articles of their own. As an alternative to deletion, I'd suggest that a condensed version of this article be created at wikt:reedless wind instrument with a soft redirect here. CThomas3 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But "reedless wind instrument" lumps flutes and brass instruments together, which is pretty meaningless. It's not "reedless woodwinds" (which I still don't think is a useful grouping). Seems like someone was trying to make a point about "pure" aerophones. - Special-T (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unsourced dicdef stub with a snowball's chance of growing further, if the last thirteen years are any guide. Any useful content not already appearing in wind instrument can be merged there. (That article's section on "Physics of sound production" uses "air reed" to describe the excitation mechanism of flutes and whistles, in a list including (cane) reeds and lip reeds.) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete. I just can't imagine what good that article is by itself. If we cover reeds and non-reeds in the same article, e.g. wind instrument, and then the different mechanisms for sound production in their own detailed articles (fipple, reed, double reed, etc.) I just don't see the point. It's a dicdef and unlikely to grow, as Bill points out. Antandrus (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate to disrespect anyone's GF work here but I have trouble seeing what use this is ... it feels like mostly a definition of what a thing is not, with a few other ideas bolted on the side, in a way I find a bit awkward, like someone's own interesting but personal idea. I can't see it growing into a useful article and I don't think it can fly on its own. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard this classification used, at least not enough that I remember it. I agree with the nom's "non-flying mammals" example as well. Aza24 (talk) 21:20, 28 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) 19:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Rudenko[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Only league appearances are for amateur and U21 teams. John B123 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:26, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Duffy[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of an ynotability, Potentially meets NACTOR however fails GNG, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 18:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage, minor parts in films/shows. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The entire article only has one source that mentions her in passing.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afdal V.K[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Only league appearances are in the 3rd tier in India John B123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our insanely broad and permissive inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet any guideline currently Spiderone 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I made a mistake. Did not read the notability criteria for footballers. I will not repeat this mistake in future Kashmorwiki (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmorwiki: we appreciate your contributions and we hope that the deletion of this article doesn't discourage you from editing. Please feel free to save a copy of the article somewhere on your user page if you wish to just in case he does become notable in future. Spiderone 16:34, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Brodeschi[edit]

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

Created as an autobiography by the subject, this was declined for A7 speedy after I nominated it in 2015. Five and a half years later, I cannot find sufficient independent sources that prove this person to be notable enough for inclusion. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time we started strongly enforcing our absolute rule against people creating autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom, no independent sources. All sources are scouting related. Fails notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Tahif[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Only league appearances are in the 4th tier in Spain. Although he has played for the Moroccan national team it was in an U20 match. John B123 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has only played in the 4th tier of Spain, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, coverage is routine mentions (e.g. call up to Morocco under 20 squad), failing WP:GNG Spiderone 21:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - delete for above reasons.Muur (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable footballer. It is time Wikipedia stopped being footballapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL "footballapedia" Missvain (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Malakand Agency. Steve Smith (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Malakand[edit]

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

Malakand is a disambiguation page listing several related contemporary and historic administrative units with the name. The article History of Malakand should be turned into a redirect to the dab page, and any content about the history of this or that place should be added to the relevant article. None of them are particularly long (with probably the most relevant one, Malakand Agency, almost a stub), so there's no case for forking out any "History" section along the lines of WP:Summary style. If anybody would like to merge any of the content from here, they're welcome to (this has, in fact, been proposed on the talk page in the past), but I'm not recommending that as the article is effectively unsourced, and has been for a decade. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to History of Swat. That is what this article seems to be about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge -- As I read the article Malakand Agency, it concerns a district adjoining Swat, rather than Swat itself, so that I must oppose Kautilya3's suggestion. This might be merged to Malakand Agency. On the other hand this article is expressed to be a main article for Malakand District#history, which is a perfectly acceptable structure within WP. I am not sure how much more content this article had than that section, but we can live in hope that someone will expand it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Malakand Agency. The nominated article is basically the integral history of the proposed merge topic, which is just a paragraph, and could sorely use the content. BD2412 T 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Malakand Agency per above. The merge article is not suitable for a stand alone article, but the target article will be improved by adding the content.   // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Steve Smith (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Dayal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A journalist cannot inherit notability from coverage of a notable event. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom, autobiography does not attract notability. Some references are dead. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with the general proposition that "a journalist cannot inherit notability from coverage of a notable event", but this is not a case where coverage of an event has yielded such notability. BD2412 T 23:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kolma8 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sreedevi (film)[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: The first three references are the database entries. The last reference is dead.

Kolma8 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:15, 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 keep. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birahim Gaye[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTY. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:24, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Poovu (film)[edit]

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

This is yet another (after another!!!) film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sujatha (1977 film)[edit]

Sujatha (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Possible ATD to List of Malayalam films of 1977. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE did not produce anything significant. Letterboxd.com shows a review but is a venue for individuals "...to share film reviews and lists with friends." Links to database information like malayalachalachithram.com, IMDb, TMDb, or spicyonion.com does not advance notability but just fulfills a need or want to "indiscriminately" and individually list of all movies and films ever made or included in the titles "List of Malayalam films of (year)". -- Otr500 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:17, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athidhi (1975 film)[edit]

Athidhi (1975 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is yet (!!!) another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references {yet again) are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A WP:BEFORE search didn't return any support for WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom with ATD to redirect to List of Malayalam films of 1975. I do a WP:BEFORE on every article that typically involves eight to ten tabs. It is important but should not be continually questioned to seem as some reason to invalidate a nomination or comments from other editors. In this case the added paaru.in is yet another database listing of movies and films. There is likely several hundred movies and films in the category Lists of Malayalam films by year but that does not mean all of them are notable for a stand alone article and certainly not when just copied from multiple list of databases. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:17, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Charlton[edit]

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one film is not enough to show notability. At least not with the level of reliable source coverage we actually have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the comment above about level of reliable source coverage. Some say search is your friend but not with this fellow. My feeling is we have a case of WP:TOOSOON. Yes, he did a stunning job during the pandemic, however, lets see a more robust filmography. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The strongest argument is from Abigailpalmer, but nobody else commented on it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons That Made Britain[edit]

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

Television series with only WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The documentary series was made for and shown on Channel 4, one of the main channels in the UK. If you watch any of the programmes (available on Youtube) you will see Channel 4 prominently highlighted in the closing credits. You can also see it referenced at a number of listing websites such as https://www.tvtime.com/en/show/82235. The series, was very popular in the UK, with a presenter, Mike Loades that has his own profile on Wikipedia. It garnered a large number of highly positive reviews in newspapers and magazines at the time, most of which are no longer available online, although one in The Times, one of the UK's leading papers, is referenced in the article. Abigailpalmer (talk) 10:30, 31 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus (film)[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: #1 is to iTune; #2 will not pass for a reliable source and talks about a gathering about the music to the film.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:34, 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 keep. Steve Smith (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Allen[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allen is the subject of a documentary film and is the main subject of a book published by Macmillan. This book review in the Washington Post makes his notability clear. As for WP:SOLDIER, that essay includes the following sentence: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Allen meets that standard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per User:Cullen328's argument. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles should meet more than one reliable source per GNG guidelines, also the lead-in states him as "an American."--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bettydaisies, a documentary, a book and a lengthy book review are three sources. There are other book reviews too. The first two are already in the article. Please explain why it is relevant to this debate that he was an American? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A documentary and a book, sure, but the entire article uses just one source. And I was discussing how the lead-in as "n American, born in the north Philadelphia", hardly notable. The book, the author, nor the documentary has a WP page, and there aren't any in-depth pieces on him as a person separate from the project. I stand by my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bettydaisies, there is absolutely no requirement that a book or an author needs to have a Wikipedia article in order to be considered a reliable source. Where did you get that idea? Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether those sources are currently in the article. Instead of deleting an article about a notable topic, instead we improve and expand that article by adding references to more sources, and by better summarizing those sources. There are two sources in the article; the documentary film and the book, which is listed under "further reading". The book review I linked to above is a third source. There are several other book reviews. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, tThe subject of a documentary that occasionally airs on a pay television channel isn't notable. The book review is a loose source since his only notability comes from the literature itself, and again, does not review him as an independent subject. I'm considering the parameters in the scope of wider American and military history and encyclopedic merit, which again, in my opinion and experience, it does not meet. Again, I stand by my reasoning.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Bettydaisies, there is no requirement that sources be notable, but rather that the topic is notable. Some unreliable sources are notable (like Weekly World News) and many reliable sources are not notable. In this particular case, the best source is the book which is actually is notable because it is itself the subject of several professional reviews, all of which devote significant attention to the topic at hand, which is Roy Moore . Nobody has yet written an article about the book, but it is notable nonetheless. It is reliable because it is published by Macmillan Publishers, a publisher with a very long history of publishing reliable books, and there are are no known reviews tearing this book to shreds, or impugning its credibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the topic isn't notable. Upon a google search for the book title + "review", I can't find any professional reviews that cover the source. Of course the book is credible, but if Macmillan Publishers is truly reliable as you say, then perhaps every single nonfiction topic of every book they've published should also have an article, according to that precedent.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bettydaisies, here is a review published by Kirkus. Here are reviews published by LibraryThing. They all discuss Roy Allen. Yes, if a topic is the main focus of a book issued by a reputable publisher and of articles in other reliable sources, then the topic is notable and ought to have a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to disagree. Moore is not notable enough to be included, nor is the subject of every single reputable book or book review. A a wider historical and encyclopedic perspective should be employed here; articles can't be created for every single person who did something during a significant event, lest it render the encyclopedia itself obsolete. I stand by my delete vote.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the entire article uses just one source As this is not a BLP, sources being in the article is irrelevant. They are only required to exist. Also articles can't be created for every single person who did something during a significant event, lest it render the encyclopedia itself obsolete. - um, what? This is entirely uncomprehensible. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cullen328 makes a convincing case for notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cullen328, that book itself meets NBOOK based on numerous reviews, but since it's about Allen, it lends some degree of notability to him, particularly if you count each review as coverage of Allen, which it isn't much of a stretch to do. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is clearly demonstrated as having been established. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Loud (Rihanna album). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

Another case of articles on album tracks that fail WP:NSONGS. Even though the song did chart on the Korean chart, that alone does not warrant notability. The majority of this article is derived from album reviews, and per Notability guideline for Songs: If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. HĐ (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to see the correct archiveurl to prove that the song charted in Korea. The supplied link takes the reader to 2012 but the chart position was supposed to be from 2010. I'm usually pretty good at hunting these things down (by tweaking the urls or clicking archive links) but the Wayback Machine doesn't like me today. Perhaps Calvin999, who added the link back in 2012, can figure out how to make it display 2010. If the Korea chart placement falls away as false, then I would recommend deletion. Otherwise, I would like to keep the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Binksternet: Even if the song did chart, it is not a reason to keep the article, as indicated at WP:NSONGS. What matters is third-party coverage of the song, and most of this article is made up of content taken from album reviews. As with what I quoted above, the article should not have existed in the first place. The content of this article can be reasonably merged in the article for Loud (Rihanna album), HĐ (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what the guidance is at NSONGS, but I think if the song charted, and if it was mentioned multiple times (even in passing) by secondary sources, it won't kill us to keep the article. If it had charted at number 50 in Liechtenstein with nothing written about it, sure, deletion would be appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think passing-by mentions satisfy notability (like what I quoted). It won't kill us to keep, yes, but it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, when an article uses passing-by mentions cherry-picked from certain album reviews just to make up an audience-specific article with little educational value, which can be altogether merged into the "Composition" section of the album article. HĐ (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Loud (Rihanna album) - Thank you for the progressive cleanup, HD. Seems to have a bit of coverage from fan and B-class sources, but it's not really enough to warrant an article, neither is the pointlessly low chart position. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I explore the Music-related WikiProjects the more articles of this sort I come across... I don't know if it is a fashionable thing for Music editors to create articles for non-notable album song, but I do hope that Music editors acknowledge that there is no need to create articles for every single album track. HĐ (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Loud (Rihanna album) as I cannot find enough significant coverage on this song to support a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also based on there being a specific interview about the song given to MTV. The chart link won't let me change to the date because of a website issue. Redirecting would be more useful otherwise you'll delete all the links about this song for the future inclusion on Loud if required. All of these articles you are proposing for deletion all have specific links about the songs, whether interviews, reviews, charts or performances. If you delete them all, the links will be gone and will be very hard to find again, considering most are archive links. You say these fail the criteria yet they all passed GAN and most appeared on DYK too HĐ.  — Calvin999 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that is why I rarely !vote Delete in AfDs, because deleting gets rid of any content which could be reused for future dates. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the articles passed GAN before the revised version of NSONGS, it is natural that GAs can fail notability and need to redirect to another article. The interview as cited in this article for "Complicated" only provides source for one quotation, which can be easily paraphrased as a short sentence. I agree that redirecting should be more useful, that's why I can see two votes for redirect already, HĐ (talk) 15:35, 28 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 Spiros Exaras. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phrygianics[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a Jazz album. I have not found the coverage needed in a WP:BEFORE search. Though lots about the album turn up on Google, it does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. I have found this article about the artist, but the album does not appear to be independently notable. Since notability is not inherited, this should be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Wikipedia isn't a data base. The sources are two listings, and a "recommandation". This is not in-depht coverage of the subject; it's far below notabality standards (esp. as the listings do not count from this point of view). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spiros Exaras: Barely found anything about the album aside from an All About Jazz article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:59, 30 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jampatong Na Nontachai[edit]

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

Simply does not meet WP:NMMA. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As mentioned in another AfD, WP:NMMA is not relevant to the subject. He seems to pass WP:NKICK as a Rajadamnern champion. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seeing as no valid reason for deletion has been provided. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that he meets WP:NKICK and has coverage in publications covering Muay Thai is enough to convince me of his notability. I had no luck finding coverage in English. WP:NMMA is not applicable for a kickboxer. Papaursa (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political Theory (journal)[edit]

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

In ictu oculi said in Special:Diff/996574067 on WP:RM/TR that this is "a not very notable journal". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clear meet of WP:NJournals: included in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation Index. In 2017 the journal had an IF of 0.8, which is quite decent for a social sciences journal. Article can easily expanded following WP:JWG (and using the pre-formatted references on my user page). --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:NJOURNALS#1.b and Randykitty. One user opining that the journal is not notable without any rationale is not an argument for deletion. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. That one random Wikipiedian thinks it's not very notable is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ward (director)[edit]

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

No reliable source in this article, I did some independent research and I couldn't find anything relevant. The subject is not notable AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time to rid Wikipedia of its inordinante, not backed by reliable sources coverage of people involved in the pornographic film industry who do not actually fit any reasonable rubric of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 30 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) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EP quantum mechanics[edit]

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

This article has languished in this sorry state for more than a decade. I searched for "EP quantum mechanics" in google scholar, and got no hits, only 2 false positives. Whatever this is, it's not notable, and not even the article creator seems to care about it anymore.

I had PROD'ed the article, which was deleted, and then undeleted after an IP user contested it. The reasons given were that the paper upon which the article is based has a lot of citations, and that its authors Faraggi and Matone have written several papers on the subject that were themselves highly cited.

None of this addresses the problem. First of all, what is even this article about? The article claims to be about a theory of motion called "EP quantum mechanics". Well, "EP quantum mechanics" only exists in Wikipedia. Maybe the article is instead about the "equivalence postulate of quantum mechanics"? So not about an alternative theory, but about this equivalence postulate (which, by the way, is not the equivalence principle)? A search for "equivalence postulate" and "quantum mechanics" together does give us several results in Google Scholar, which are almost exclusively papers by Faraggi and Matone published in garbage journals or unpublished. I think it's clear that this fails the WP:GNG.

In addition, pretty much the whole content of this article is reproduced in a section of quantum potential, so deleting this article won't lead to any loss of information. This also gives us a hint what the article is about: it seems to be a variant of Bohmian mechanics. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the expression "EP quantum mechanics" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia, I don't think that's a useful redirect. Tercer (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redirects are cheap, but we do generally prefer them to be plausible search terms. I don't think that's the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CaptainGalaxy 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up (video game)[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV, current sourcing includes two short blurbs, and then a rather nice review from a dubious source, Electronic Fun with Computer & Games. If there were several other reviews of that caliber, GNG would be met. One of the current sources (Telematch) doesn't even mention the game. Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability does not fade with age. The sources are published (ie. print) magazines from the early 80s gaming world. Like in WP:BOOKCRIT #1, reviews of artistic works are essential in determining notability. -- GreenC 15:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename the article to Heads Up Action Soccer as that's what it was officially named. https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/03148/cah-03148.html Coverage has been found proving it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article cites to multiple printed publications from the 1980s discussing the game. Per the above comments, I also think there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability and that the coverage is reliable enough. DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per citations in the article. Rename to Heads Up Action Soccer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the numerous RSes cited. Phediuk (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing reviewer - Heads up, I reopened this after One15969 brought it to my attention that many some of the comments were may have been canvassed from a WikiProject. I'll recuse myself from the final decision. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missvain This is an inaccurate accusation and has already turning the AfD into a referendum over misplaced claims of canvassing. I left a message on your talk page, but your unequivocal statement here that "many of the comments were canvassed" will negatively influence voters as a dog whistle on what to do. It's inaccurate, unfair and unsupportable. -- GreenC 00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To echo this, the canvassing accusations are not supported IMHO. I was pinged on this when the AFD was opened. Zxcvbnm is a regular video game contributor, as is Phediuk AFAIK. The suggestion that there has been something improper here seems really unfair to me as this article does not seem like a close call in terms of deletion to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see anything in the article which proves or suggests notability. It's an early computer game; this is not automatically important. It's an early sports game: ditto. "Reviews of artistic works are essential in determining notability" is a smokescreen. If the product isn't that important, if nothing notable was achieved, if coverage is merely reviews and scores out of 10, then it's nothing more than A. N Other game. The canvassing did its job; the article does not. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in reviews demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 3 of the 4 "reviews" are nothing more than blurbs in niche magazines, supported by advertising from videogame companies. As such, they do not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviews for video games are always on video game review websites or in magazines that cover video games. All of these have advertisements for video games as well, that doesn't matter though. They have always counted as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. And when games were far simpler, the reviews weren't as long since there is far less to write about them. This still counts as coverage by a reliable source, so counts towards the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject topic seems to pass GNG with the available cited sources, with potentially more to be discovered given the name discrepancy. Nominator also shows a lack of knowledge or understanding on what constitute to be reliable sources which have been vetted by members of WP:VG over a number of years. Also, nominator is acting in bad faith with baseless accusations of vote canvassing and insinuation of the AfD closer's competence when the consensus does not appear to move towards their POV. Perhaps this is a case of WP:Boomerang and the nominator's competence could or should be called into question? Haleth (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has enough cited sources to pass notability and minimum criteria for the coverage in media/magazines. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the numerous RSes cited. Surpassed WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these types of old games are hard to write but consistently notable. Reviews exist and you can always expand it to just outside the scope of a stub. They may never become featured articles and that's ok. Wikipedia is better for having a complete list of these games as long as they don't take a promotional tone or rely on primary sources. Archrogue (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeps per all the reasons above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

There is no reason to delete this. All content is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.13 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Koli[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability criteria. Cannot find any independent sources covering about the person independtly Shahoodu (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ India, Press Trust of (2014-02-19). "Bharatpur to be a Municipal Corporation". Business Standard India. Retrieved 2020-12-27.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The subject was covered only once and that was due to her election to the Municipal body. This will fail WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. This is not a major election so WP:POL is not met. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : An elected mayor clearly meets notability criteria.!! The inadequacy of online news about her is evident here.however there is a some of news at the regional language 1 ,2,3 Pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN -- Padavalam🌂  ►  21:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Padavalamkuttanpilla, I can read the Hindi language script so here is my response on your links.
      • [1] is not even about Suman Koli, it is about another person (a Kerala mayor). It only has a 2 line passing mention.
      • [2] is a list of young mayors with 2 line info for each
      • [3] is a 2 min video where the subject is asking citizens to follow lockdown restrictions.
    • None of these qualify as significant coverage. So these cannot be used to claim a passing WP:GNG. WP:POL is failed by a long shot. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mayors are not assumed to be notable by virtue of being elected. The sources provided show the barest of passing mention and a google search doesn't result in anything better either. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mayors are assumed to be notable if they are elected. But the sources provided barely proves that. I cannot even find a single independent source about this person ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkalissery (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable politician by the position they hold or coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. RationalPuff (talk) 10:48, 30 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 per WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS: the only sources that cover this song is about Joe Jonas and nothing on the song's music, production, or lyrics. Chart positions alone are not sufficient for notability. HĐ (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirection to Fearless (Taylor Swift album), the article doesn't need to be deleted so that we can avoid redlinking. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fearless (Taylor Swift album). The content could be summed up in two sentences in the album article (and already is). Heartfox (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this one. Doesn't the fact that is was certified Platinum indicate some notability? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of Taylor Swift songs that went gold or platinum (like "This Love" from 1989 or "I'm Only Me When I'm With You" from self-titled) but fail NSONGS. This is also one of them... hardly found anything except for the inspo that is Joe Jonas, which is already mentioned in Fearless (Taylor Swift album). HĐ (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wink e-book reader[edit]

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

2010 article about a new type of e-book reader that has never had any RIS to support it. I can find launch publicity from 2010 and 2011 online but that’s all, so I don’t see anything to suggest that this device is notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Wink store doesn't even exist when you visit the link. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable e-book reader. Article wholly promotional. RationalPuff (talk) 09:08, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabza[edit]

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

unsourced. No indication of meeting WP:NFILM noq (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:38, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hayes (actress)[edit]

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

Utterly inadequate sourcing for a BLP and the award wins HoF simply are no longer relevant. We either need to do better or delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Fails WP:GNG and even if it is deleted it will still exist in over 10 other languages.

–Cupper52Discuss! 11:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to International cricket in 2017. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2017[edit]

Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Störm (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:52, 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. Would have been a valid speedy delete as a substantial recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BatchSync. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batchsync[edit]

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

A previous article instance by the same WP:SPA contributor was deleted at AfD in October 2018. A PROD was added to this new (differently-spelled) instance by MrsSnoozyTurtle with the rationale "Recreation of deleted article by same corporate WP:SPA" but is ineligible because of the 2018 decision, hence this new AfD. This instance does feature a review on a Softpedia download page which perhaps may make it ineligible for CSD G4. However neither that nor anything else seems sufficient to change my delete opinion in the previous AfD, repeated in this rationale: "A WP:SPA-maintained article describing a product's features. My searches are not finding the independent WP:RS coverage needed for notability by WP:PRODUCT / WP:GNG.". AllyD (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recently created and already has been tagged for notability. –Cupper52Discuss! 11:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As per nom. Seems like a procedural issue and the authorWP:GAMING the system by using a different spelling. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MadMouse Records[edit]

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

no media coverage and does not indicate any presence of notability The label appear to fail any or all of WP:NMUSIC, WP:CORPDEPTH. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Cites no sources. –Cupper52Discuss! 11:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unnotable label. No sources cited at all and I couldn't find anything that indicates notability. COI also applies, as the creator only edited this article and edited the "M" section at the "List of record labels" article (he added the link of this article). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This probably could have been PRODed but since it's here there is no indication this label is notable. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 18:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discounting the three SPAs, I still see a consensus to keep this article -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Jordan[edit]

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

Although he passed recently, it is not notable enough to necessitate an article. EPIC STYLE (LET'S TALK) 06:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EPIC STYLE (LET'S TALK) 06:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. EPIC STYLE (LET'S TALK) 06:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator. Jordan was a star athlete in the Pac-12 scene. Odds are quite high someone would have made an article about him soon even if he hadn't passed. If you look at Template:Pac-12 Player of the Year, every other person on that Offensive Player of the Year line has an article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is as notable as some others I have seen that have articles here on Wikipedia that have shown up as recently departed, and in many cases I have seen the red link for them and soon after the blue link indicating the article was made after death. So I have seen this a lot, I look at who passes away every day for the last year or so, even longer actually. So I see its common for articles to be made about someone after they die. And it is true and I agree an article would have been made anyway. Anyone getting a reward like Freshman of the Year in a major football conference like the Pac-12 would automatically make them a prospect pretty high up on the NFL's list is he were to maintain his talents. So this guy is as deserving as some of the other stuff I have seen that was not up for deletion.RobotWillie (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL. Coverage due to the circumstances of his death and young age, trivial content about another family member in the article, and he could've probably been something special but in the end played only one coronavirus-shortened season — a whopping five games — of college ball. Death does not establish notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beemer69 rationale. Furthermore, quoting examples of articles made for other persons does not support the creation of this particular one - the exact circumstances for each are always different. As with all promising persons taken too soon, the deceased needed more time living to establish a true notability, rather than garnering some kind of crystal ball sympathy vote mainly because he died. Ref (chew)(do) 09:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article expanded since nomination. Meets WP:GNG with signficant coverage by multiple, independent sources even before his death.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won an award that is part of the Template:College Football Awards. Therefore, he meets notability criteria under under WP:COLLATH. JoeyLyles (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. Ty Jordan is a legitimate public figure and this article includes legitimate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwgajc (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC) — Gwgajc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Death doesn't make a person notable for an article. Winning a major sports award such as Pac-12 Offensive Freshman of the Year does. Article meets WP:GNG. Mexicorni (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)— Mexicorni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Winning Pac-12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in itself should meet WP:GNG. So should death of player during college career. PenulisHantu (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two "keep" votes are from brand-new single-purpose accounts who have made no other edits thus far. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 05:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes both WP:GNG and WP:COLLATH as others have already explained. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Bagumba-the article has been expanded with citations-Thank You-RFD (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jordan's award-winning playing career and his newsworthy death combine to satisfy GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In an example of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, here's significant coverage on him on Jan 1, 2021, many days after his death.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see the kind of history which would justify salting so that is not done. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Briguglio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL; highest elected office is local council, nor meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, as there are zero third-party reliable-sources with coverage about the subject. Appears to have WP:COI issues as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, given the 4.5 years of COI editing despite warnings. The intention here is clearly self-promotion. A search found nothing indicating notability. Possibly (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per Possibly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/salt for the aforementioned reasons. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Michael Briguglio gained notability in Malta as a sociologist, environmentalist, local council member and European Parliament Candidate.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Surf Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

Jersey Surf Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a number of fancruft DCI articles lightly sourced to its own website, the DCI website, and the non-RS live event streamer flosports.com. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News and Google Books finds no substantive mentions, merely appearances in performance lists and incidental mentions. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2009-04 ✗ A7
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasupati Group[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found the closure quite odd, too. Please see here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails NCORP. Hard to see any outcome other than delete Spiderone 21:49, 31 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Coombs (designer)[edit]

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

Citations do not support WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Google search does not seem to uncover those sources either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps a case of just not being there yet. BD2412 T 05:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet GNG, NPROF or NARTIST. A search turned up little. Possibly (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the previous remarks, doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Curiocurio (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: given that graphic designers primarily earn recognition through awards like the AIGA and ADC awards that Coombs has won, how does WP:NARTIST account for the work of a designer? It seems to me like it doesn't. How many awards does she have to win? Or will no number of awards matter? I ask these somewhat absurd questions because they highlight the ineffectiveness of NARTIST here. Theredproject (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Artist accounts for awards in Criteria 4(c). However, there should be citations to independent reliable sources like newspaper accounts or academic/trade journals confirming the receipt and significance of the award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theredproject: I think all the criteria can be made to apply, but the bar ends up being higher for designers because the public market is smaller. I'm thinking of examples like the designer of the I Love New York campaign (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work), Jony Ive for The person is regarded as an important figure, and of course all the designers in museum collections count for WP:ARTIST part 4d. I think their chance of becoming notable are a lot lower than that of your average artist, given that there aren't as many opportunities to be reviewed. Possibly (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morbidthoughts, What I am trying to work through is the way the combination the way NARTIST is written, and how it is interpreted, has led to a designer like Coombs being read as TOOSOON, but an artist with roughly the equivalent set of accolades would likely be a !Keep or !Weak Keep. The way that "critical attention" as mentioned in 4(c) has been interpreted here is exhibition reviews, as implied by what Possibly has said above. Past discussions have discounted grants as meeting "critical attention" to establish N (though I disagree), and also awards that are not of the highest order.
    What I am positing, is that the way a designer receives "critical attention" is fundamentally different from that of an artist. Designers don't receive exhibition reviews, they don't receive book reviews, but they do have a system of awards. AIGA is the primary US design organization, and they give out several kinds of awards. They give out about 5 AIGA Medals annually, which is the kind of award that would be undoubtably recognized as establishing N. And they hold two or three Design Competitions, which give out awards [1]; the primary of these is the 50 Books/50 Covers competition, which it first awarded in 1941. 50 Books/50 Covers has a short section on the [American Institute of Graphic Arts] page, and it is out of date. It is probably incorrect to try to compare 50 Books/50 Covers to an annual exhibition, like the Whitney Biennial, as though they are of about the same size, they do not attract the same kind of media attention. Which in some ways makes clear the incommensurate ways that designers and artists are evaluated here.
    Given that designers don't receive exhibition reviews, I reframe my question: do awards constitute "critical attention," and if not, how we are to evaluate the notability of a designer? Theredproject (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider awards to be evidence of won critical attention. The debate then becomes whether the awards are significant. If independent reliable sources like media don't cover them, that doesn't bode well for the subject's notability. Trying make the criteria level for different types of artists can be seen as insisting on WP:FALSEBALANCE because ultimately notability is about the amount of coverage a person gets. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this emerging designer to meet GNG, PROF or NARTIST, however in a couple of years I imagine there will be enough coverage of her to support an article. If more sources can be found at this time, I'm willing to change my !vote. Re: @Theredproject:'s comment, good point, perhaps there should be different criteria created for designers. Where would such a discussion take place? Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 29 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) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napa Wye, California[edit]

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

I suppose since this was sourced only to Durham I could have just prodded it, but this is so bad I had to push it through here so people had a better idea of the nonsense level we're up against. Yes, it's just a wye junction. Looking back on old enough topos, and there's some entertainingly complex trackwork, but it's just a NN rail point, and I would guess that Durham says as much. Mangoe (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:44, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard, California[edit]

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

Lombard contains Lombard Yard because they are the same thing. The name does not appear until the yard does, and when it does, it's an isolated yard around which industrial development gradually appears. Hits for the yard itself are much fewer, and its only real notability is that it's where the headquarters for the California Northern Railroad were before it was swallowed by Genesee, which is not much. Mangoe (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:18, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRM Idol[edit]

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

Non-notable award, cannot find any reliable independent sources to suggest notability. Fails WP:GNG. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilee Webb[edit]

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

I have added one reference to this article about a fitness instructor, presenter and author, but cannot find anything else to add, and don't think she meets WP:GNG. The article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2015. The linked article on Buns of Steel does not mention Webb. Tacyarg (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 02:38, 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 redirect to Stagecoach in Bedford. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach X5[edit]

Stagecoach X5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only significant coverage is from one local news article talking about the route's recent shortening. Aside from that, 2 mentions of the route in books. Fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junior (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced and tagged for 10 years. Fails WP:BAND. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching for sources is difficult, given that the name is a fairly common word, but I tried and found nothing to suggest notability. I'm willing to change my !vote if anything turns up, but as it stands the article reads like a fan piece and would need a major overhaul if kept. --Kinu t/c 22:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kinu. No evidence of notability. Just because they toured with notable acts does not make them notable. The name is not the easiest name to search with, so I tried with the albums and all I got were the usual unreliable stuff. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:54, 28 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 with no prejudice to a future redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Vigodman[edit]

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

Article about a dude with a job, completely void of independent personal coverage in WP:RS. A cursory search for information about him yields nothing other than routine business announcements and information about Teva. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Computer Systems[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is of WP:ROUTINE events. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penduko[edit]

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

Future film with no evidence filming ever began, last round of news was in 2019 with casting changes, but nothing confirming beyond then, does not meet WP:NFF, would probably be a good candidate for drafting BOVINEBOY2008 01:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yeah... I couldn't find anything to support beginning of the production other than the film "is in pipeline." [2]. Looks like the main actor was replaced in October 2019 and that was the last news about the production/cast/etc/. A new company was created to produce the film in February 2020. [3], and that is it. Kolma8 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If something ever does come of this, the article can be restored at that time. BD2412 T 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rothschild (author)[edit]

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

No apparent notability; fails WP:BIO. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything about him in the press. He's the author of a business book, a single magazine article, and possibly the original version of this Wikipedia article. Nothing in WP:BIO seems to hint at notability for him - the book isn't a significant monument, and there's basically no coverage of him in WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 01:35, 31 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Der Grüne Wagen[edit]

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

PROD rationale was: In English as-is, this is an A7 candidate. I'm only not A7ing it because the German version has an (unsourced) claim to significance, allegedly as "one of the oldest German-speaking touring companies since 1945". Did I find a source for that? Nope. Did I find any sources mentioning it whatsoever? Also nope. It's a WP:GNG/WP:NORG fail right now.

De-PROD'd by Encyclopædius with the edit summary "Not a candidate, a", which isn't very explanatory. It certainly was a PROD candidate, given that it hasn't been PROD'd or AfD'd before. Unless they meant not a candidate for A7, which isn't actually what I tagged it as. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Kolma8 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We really need to expand the biographies of living people prod process to any unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the more important German theater companies. It is mainly known for its directors and actors, as would be expected. A very impressive roster. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so you can obviously provide a couple of in depth reliable sources to back those claims up, yes? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I finally had time to go through the sources and although there have been a great number of citations added, few are independent or reliable, and when they are, the actual content in them about Der Grüne Wagen is quite thin. For a theater company of such apparent importance, you'd think there would be more in-depth independent coverage than what's been provided here. In the order provided in the article:
  1. ☒N Own website - not independent
  2. ☒N Tournee Theater website - major venue for the company, not independent
  3. ☒N Mention in a footnote - not significant
  4. ☒N Single-sentence mention
  5. ☒N Only getting snippet with no preview, but appears to be single-sentence
  6. ☒N "Biographisches Lexikon der Theaterkünstler" translates to "Biographical lexicon of theater artists" - lots of appearances, however this is not content about Der Grüne Wagen, merely mentions of it in artist bios
  7. ☒N Personal website - not reliable and anyway only a mention of Der Grüne Wagen
  8. ☒N Snippet view, but name only appears once in the book, for a couple sentences
  9. ☒N Same personal website as number 7
  10. ☒N Content is about Jürgen Wilke, Der Grüne Wagen is mentioned exactly once
  11. ☒N This is a self-written CV for a guy who works with Der Grüne Wagen, it should be obvious why that isn't independent
  12. ☒N Content is about Thomas Stroux, Der Grüne Wagen is mentioned exactly once
  13. ☒N Per the front page, "Theapolis is the largest portal for theater professionals and theater job offers in the german speaking area" - ie it's not independent news media, it's an industry networking site
  14. ☒N IMDB is user-generated and not reliable
  15. ☒N Snippet view useless, it's sideways, so I have no way of even reading it
  16. checkY Finally, an actual review of a production! This is both independent and reasonably in-depth.
  17. ☒N Advertisement for a show, not independent content
  18. Question? Actual review of a production, although it's mostly about the play in general, with little commentary on the performance.
So we're looking at one really good source, and the rest of the article is cobbled together from trivial mentions, commercial sites, and even fansites. If this is the best sourcing available for this company, we can't possibly keep this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable theatre company, probably German language newspapers offline have even more to go on but easily sufficient for a keep!.† Encyclopædius 20:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those wanting to keep have said that the subject is notable and that there are sources. I'd like to know which of these sources are reliable and sufficient to establish notability. If there are a couple of good sources then those should be referenced clearly and the content provided by the unreliable sources should be removed.―NK1406 talk•contribs 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable enough – no reason to doubt their accuracy. They cover the involvement of directors and actors in the Grüne Wagen and its productions. They give a solid historical overview of the ensemble. Again, the roster is something of a Who's Who of the German-language theater world. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augsburger Allegemeine full article
  • full article
  • full article
  • Nord Bayern newspaper dated 14 Sept 1963, full article
  • Zeit one of Germany's main newspapers, full article behind a paypall.
  • And Zeit again all I can access in a search is "Salzburger Regiegastspiel will William Dieterle die "Medea" von Robinson Jeffers für den "Grünen Wagen" " Sources which cover it extensively will be in newspapers and theater journals like those offline.
  • Like this Die Bühne, Issues 340-351 p.37 snippet all I can see is "Hollweg gelang GRÜNER WAGEN es , das an sich undramatisch starre Schema ohne Denunziation der frühen Frommes ... Auch wenn vor szenischen Kalau E inst von William Dieterle geleitet und Richard Strauss : Zwei Premieren ern nicht ".
  • Also covered in Dierterle's biography over several pages which I can't access. If somebody had access to German newspaper archives we'd find much more from the 50s and 60s.

There's enough to pass GNG though given the actors who've toured with it you'd expect more extensive coverage in contemporary papers online.† Encyclopædius 20:25, 17 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator admitted one source in article to be valid, Encyclopædius has found more, while I found this book that quotes reviews of one of its productions [4], indicating many more reviews. Should qualify under GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:GNG is not met. Most of the sources do not come close, as detail, but even references 16 & 18 fail. 16 & 18 do not make secondary source comment on the theatre group, they just list fact about the group, and the very limited comment is on the group's production. I am looking for the most basic comments, such as "Der Grüne Wagen is old", or "Der Grüne Wagen is a good theatre company", any adjective describing the company though preferably its history, and it is just not there. A couple of show reviews is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasa Klaas[edit]

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER nor does she satisfy WP:GNG as a before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her most google hits are on unreliable sources such as blogs, self published sources and cites without editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable newspapers in Botswana have been migrating their websites and have not successfully managed to move their previous articles which in turn will make most of Wikipedia articles of Botswana to be deleted, I have been accessing the archives and trying as much to keep the articles relevant as possible. For Example The Voice (Botswana) moved their new site to a subdomain https://news.thevoicebw.com instead of using their main domain and made it non indexable. You mentioned that blogs where used to reference but I would like to disagree with that as Botswana media has slightly grown even though the websites used for referencing might not be worth adding to Wikipedia at the moment they are relevant to the local community. Those that have been added to Wikipedia there is nothing much to them also--> The Voice (Botswana), Mmegi, The Botswana Gazette, Yarona FM, Ministry of Transport and Communications (Botswana), Slumber Tsogwane, Botswana Guardian. DownTownRich (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does listing Botswanan sources which do not discuss the subject of our discussion help establish his notability? Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in national newspapers such as Mmegi referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be the source @Atlantic306 seems to be referring to, although isn’t a bad source I am unconvinced SIGCOV is satisfied. Furthermore Just 1 seemingly good source isn’t enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I can’t seem to find WP:3REFS good refs which discusses our subject with in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG, which is the threshold at the moment. Let us also not forget the subject is a singer and doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON?Celestina007 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better article from that source here. There is a case for being lenient with this one as Botswana singers are seriously under represented on Wikipedia with just four articles as far as I can tell from the category and if this one goes we will be down to three, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DownTownRich's newspaper argument.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Atlantic306, Sources in some African countries are relatively poor or low. We should consider that as well. Lord Grandwell (talk) 09:57, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Whittaker[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for a Wikipedia Article. Specifically, WP:GNG, there is not significant coverage independent of the author by secondary sources. As it stands now, it reads like a curriculum vitae.WP:NOCVS Epachamo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I sought for evidence that this individual met WP:PROF, but while I found substantial evidence for two other DJ Whittakers, this one does not seem to clear the threshold. I see no other criteria being met either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Heat (compilation series)[edit]

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

completely unsourced, unencyclopedic, and promotional page for a topic not clearly notable Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 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 redirect to Hamilton (musical)#Musical numbers. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Adams Administration[edit]

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

This is a minor song from Hamilton (musical). It has no secondhand attention (despite it being one of my personal favorites). There is no reason for it to receive its own article, it should be merged back OfficerCow (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hamilton (musical)#Musical numbers. I agree with the nominator in that there is no need for an individual article, and the creator had to pad it with inconsequential fan trivia. The song has received no useful media notice in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hamilton (musical)#Musical numbers. Other songs of similar importance in the musical do not have a page. The article (at least right now) does not warrant a page of its own. LeBron4 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the song is not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hamilton (musical)#Musical numbers. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage for a separate article, but this is still a viable search term so I think a redirect would be more beneficial to any interested readers instead of an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hamilton (musical)#Musical numbers oer above; there is not SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article and there is a good targetfor a redirect.   // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 31 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. Steve Smith (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFRT Music[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. Winning a single award, even if it is RIAA, or an artist they licensed winning a Grammy, does not meet the guidelines of notability. OfficerCow (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It was a billboard award for a song it published. It joined the RIAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficerCow (talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, OfficerCow (talk) 09:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_27&oldid=998578994"