Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 27	December 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Winter[edit]

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

BLP with only reference her own website. Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles like this sourced only to the subject's own website should not survive 12 hours, yet somehow this article has survived 12 years. This is a disgrace to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert. I checked the interwikis to see if there are any sources there, but nope. They are also "sourced" solely to the website of the subject and myspace. And, in full agreement with JPL, I have no idea how articles with dreadful sourcing like this stay on Wikipedia for 12 and even more years. Update: It is because the German and the French article was created by the same COI editor who created the English version. The Italian version was created by someone else. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero RS supplied for this article. There are 4 non english articles for her, but as noted, most of these were created by one author, and none of them have RS in their respectice languages. Until some RS establishes notablility, I am voting delete. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article created by WP:SPA with no evidence of notability. Maybe the article creator might have some idea of where we can find sources but I'll have to agree with deletion unless evidence of notability comes forward Spiderone 18:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged for sources for over eleven years.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 10:34, 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 redirect to Hannah Montana Forever. Closing this early. If anyone disagrees, I'm happy to reopen it for the full duration of a week. I'm going to redirect this and protect the redirect page. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song)[edit]

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

Single by a notable artist but no indication of notability. Bringing here for ultimate decision because the creator SPA and several new page reviewers are edit warring it between being a redirect and a page. FalconK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect, claims of the song charting are not supported by the sources thus far provided, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, Hannah Montana Forever. SPA apparently disingenuously simply slapped some chart information on the article which is unsupported by citations, or by searches. Another song by this artist did chart at #66 on US Billboard Hot 100, but that was Gonna Get This, the week of 11/6/2010, see here. The other 2 are not major charts, so would not count towards WP:NSONG. So it doesn't meet that SNG or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in looking at the other song's article, it appears this editor simply copied that charting table to this article in an attempt to game the system. Based on that, I would also recommend that if redirected, it is protected so that it can't be recreated.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mantain. A song to be relevant to have an article doesnt have to chart in the hot 100 or any country. Multiple singles by other relevant artists such as Katy Perry recently didnt chart and have an article. This is the only ahannah Montana single without a article and it should have one. The character sold 15million albums worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hannah Montana Forever. Fails the only real requirement of WP:NSONGS: "must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hannah Montana Forever - not indepedently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone above. The creator is not COI though, as he/she (most likely she, based on the edits) edited lots of other articles though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hannah Montana Forever; and protect the redirect so that the article shall not be recreated, HĐ (talk) 16:28, 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. Sandstein 12:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulthan Hyderali[edit]

(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: Three database entries. So it is essentially unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are totally unsatisfactory and the lead (and plot, characters, etc.) are totally missing. A Malayalam language film does not belong on the English Wikpedia. As per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:25, 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 speedy keep per request of the nominator. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ox (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

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

advertising, no indication of notability The Banner talk 22:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: stub creator). Did you even try Google? I just created this stub today. There are plenty of reviews by notable publications, not to mention more than 30 articles by Eater Portland alone. The chef/owners received James Beard Foundation Awards for their work at Ox. Easy keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It looks as though WP:BEFORE slipped the noms mind for some odd reason. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What I nominated was an article that just said: there is a restaurant. Nothing more. The Banner talk 09:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources establish notability; WP:HEY Spiderone 23:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with that. The Banner talk 09:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator, due to the improvements to the article that now proves it notability. The Banner talk 09:49, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPMorgan European Investment Trust[edit]

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

Not notable investment trust. Google news search turns up only one hit. [1] - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I can't even find trivial coverage of it anywhere. Maybe it could be redirected to a J.P. Morgan related page as an alternative deletion, but it's probably an obscure search term. So, I'm just going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia Smajlaj[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, [2] is the only one to include any independent coverage (and even that one is mostly a Q&A interview). I was not able to find any additional coverage searching online, although it's possible that an editor more familiar with Albanian media may be able to find more. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable works as far as I can see and no good sources apart from the interview already mentioned. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN unless I'm missing something Spiderone 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 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. Sandstein 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Infrastructure (Iran)[edit]

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

As mentioned by User:تاورنیه on the talk page, a ministry with this title may have been proposed in 2011 (when this article was created), but I can't find any evidence it has been set up. Our own Portal:Current events/2011 May 22 mentions its establishment, but Ali Nikzad, the minister, does not link to this page. I think we need to clear this up, and perhaps deleting this page is the cleanest way to do so. —Kusma (t·c) 14:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:34, 21 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 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, there are no direct references available for this ministry of the Government of Iran. Agree, the best way to resolve this matter (and article that has no references nor direct links to the Ministry) is to delete the article and watch what happens. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:30, 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 Commander Keen#Legacy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Galactic Alphabet[edit]

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

Substitution alphabet from a single video game. The article was previously a redirect to Commander Keen, which covers it only very tersely, but then, the current state of the article is largely unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. No reason to believe this is notable outside of the game. FalconK (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:WRONGFORUM this has been a redirect for 11 years, and should continued to redirect to Commander Keen#Legacy where it is mentioned. Otherwise it is gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I included this here because I'd be deleting the entire content of the article when merging, and it would be helpful to have the "previously deleted" status on the page to prevent its creation a third time. I don't think procedural close per WP:WRONGFORUM applies here. Thanks for chiming in! FalconK (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commander Keen#Legacy where it is already mentioned. Since it doesn't seem like a notable enough subject on it's own, but is still worth being redirected to where it's already talked about. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commander Keen#Legacy per nom. IceWelder [✉] 22:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commander Keen#Legacy - not independently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it is a unique element that makes Commander Keen what it is, with sufficient references to go with it. Deltasim (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commander Keen: there is not SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article. There is no sourced content to merge into the target. // Timothy :: talk 05:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lúcia Alves[edit]

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

PROD concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; unlike the other Benfica players with articles, I couldn't find any evidence of caps; nothing on Global Sports Archive, Playmaker Stats or Soccerway.

Contested with reasoning Listed in https://www.zerozero.pt/player.php?id=537389 which matches the games listed in the article. Also many media mentions of being in line-up, such as https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-feminino/detalhe/final-da-taca-de-portugal-benfica-valadares-gaia-em-direto

A WP:BEFORE search was unable to find any significant coverage and, in my view, you need more than mentions in match reports and entries in football databases to pass GNG. Spiderone 20:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:13, 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 keep. While the article is a stub, there is clearly no consensus for anything like deletion, and tertiary education institutions that verifiably are accredited have in all cases that I can think of been deemed notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Patanjali[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as the topic lacks detailed coverage in Independent reliable media. The only coverage are passing mentions in articles related to the parent org: Patanjali Yogpeeth or its founder Ramdev. The org does not inherit owner's notability. In addition, due to the nature of the Ayurveda related organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant and, we have to have a very good reason to write about pseudo science orgs and fake medicine. We'd need much better documentation than is actually available in order to justify this article. The page creator has reverted a redirect to Patanjali Yogpeeth. So here we are. --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep University of Patanjali is a recognised degree issuing University. It is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) as per this and the Uttarakhand government which passed The University of Patanjali Act, 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator claims accreditation equals notability, but there is no such rule as far as I know. Accreditation can be revoked any time whenever the org fails the accreditation criteria. In fact every year hundreds of org in India loose their accreditation. So accreditation cannot and should not mean default notability. Moreover there were issues with its accreditation and seem to have been granted under political pressure. See

"UGC denies recognition to Baba Ramdev's Patanjali University". dailybhaskar. 2 January 2013., "After finances, Ramdev varsity under UGC scanner for violation of norms". Hindustan Times. 1 January 2013.--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A two-line article about a university established in 2006. Who/what/when/where/why? Nothing notable in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited and officially recognised degree-awarding tertiary institution. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per argument above, there's no consensus that being accredited is sufficient. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There absolutely is. Please point me to a single AfD discussion where an accredited university has been deleted. Let alone lots of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an accredited university, and the article has lots of potential to expand. From my view, this university (without a doubt) warrants a page. LeBron4 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There's potential for expansion of the article as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Haridwar: Article does not meet ORGCRIT for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a directory. If the content and sources develop on the target page and notability is established and it meets SPLIT, it can be split. The content will also have a better chance of being noticed and developed in the target article than in a stand alone stub. // Timothy :: talk 22:54, 29 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 WP:SNOW keep. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that there will be consensus for deletion of this article. BD2412 T 05:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neranja Manasu[edit]

(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. Unsourced essentially: 1 ref [3] - is a one paragraph "gossip" announcing the film. 2 ref [4] is dead 3 ref [5] returns "This album is currently unavailable in your area. Why?", which is not an actual reference as I understand, but a link to the music from the movie. Kolma8 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, plenty of sources appear on Google without doing a strenuous search (and this too for an Indian film from the mid-00s!). This also seems to be the case for several of the other articles you have put up for deletion. I think a whole review needs to be done of your recent edits and suggestions. Neutral Fan (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed to statement above. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all of the above. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clearly demonstrated through sources Spiderone 15:14, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Chompy Ace 13:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Glaiza Herradura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Chompy Ace 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete not notable enough as an actress to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NACTOR, Herradura appears to have had significant roles in notable television shows and films, and won or was nominated for multiple awards over a series of years. Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 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. Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwal Singh Chauhan[edit]

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

Simply winning Padma Shri shouldn't make him notable. Failing to find beyond that. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - I think dedicated articles in three major papers is enough to meet SIGCOV. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Expanded the article a little bit. The subject is a recipient of India's fourth-highest civilian award, the Padma Shri, which meets WP:ANYBIO, also meets WP:GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Getting a Padma Shri makes him notable. Pilean (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His notable contribution in agriculture gave him the India's fouth-highest civilian award. Fully meets the nobility criteria l. RationalPuff (talk) 22:34, 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. Sandstein 12:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonyo Premer Golpo[edit]

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

Non notable web series. Apart from some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage or in-depth reviews. Most of sources also doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's reviewed at Lets OTT but its reliability is unclear. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:40, 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. Sandstein 12:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Sati[edit]

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

Non notable short film. Apart from some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage or in-depth reviews from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of sources doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage or in-depth reviews. Kolma8 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:11, 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 Barabanki district. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral constituencies of Barabanki district[edit]

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

Unnecessary, as this subject is already covered under List of constituencies of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOT. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no need to maintain such a list at the district level. --Ab207 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barabanki district. No need to maintain duplicate information on multiple articles.RationalPuff (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barabanki district per above. The content will benefit from the new placement and the target article will benefit from the merge. // Timothy :: talk 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barabanki district per WP:PRESERVE. I believe the content would need to be summarized into prose form in the target article to fit into a section. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:50, 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 soft delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamini (web series)[edit]

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

Non notable web series. Apart from some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage or in-depth reviews. Most of sources also doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I can't see any RS establishing notability here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Wohlfarth[edit]

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

As it turns out this is a semi-procedural nomination, three years in the making. Contested redirection by My very best wishes. check K.e.coffman's rationale on the talk, "Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions. Article copy is uncited or cited to self-published web sites which is not sufficient for notability. No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Kapitanleutnant. Successful completion of missions is not part of SOLDIER. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists." I'm not familiar with the reliability of the sourcing, but leaning towards a redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we keep any flying ace who shot down 5 planes, I don't see how we can't keep this guy who was responsible for sinking 21 ships. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in Clay Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War [6] and mentioned in relation to sinking of Bismarck [7]. Given that there is almost certainly more substantial coverage in German sources, keep per WP:GNG. Kges1901 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reply to pinging me). After looking at Google books search (link at the top of the page) and specific sources it finds, one can see a significant coverage in a number of books on the history of WW II (a couple of them are noted by Kges1901 just above. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 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. Closing this one due to early consensus. Feel free to discuss redirects on the Love Island (2015 TV series) page per WP:REDIRECT. If anyone wants me to reopen to run a full week just ask. Missvain (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Porter[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, appears to likely have been created for pay without proper disclosure. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a young a rising actor. The actor is likely to have more sources become available as time progresses. The page should remain as the young actor is a notable figure in New Zealand, thus deserving a page/ User:Ilovemoviesnz 09:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Ilovemoviesnz (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Benpporter (talk • contribs). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Young actor with a very recent career, with a page about him and a TV series he starred in created by an SPA. The article relies heavily on imdb and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources about him. The Daily Encourager comes close to providing a single source, but even if we accept its coverage as significant we're still lacking multiple independent reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Created to highlight New Zealand's young talent. There are government endorsed and published articles used as references and multiple credible news articles that are reliable. It meets WP:NACTOR and is therefore approvable/ Jenna Ashworth 11:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — JennaAshworth (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Benpporter (talk • contribs). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - missed the probable UPE issue when I prodded it. But fails WP:NACTOR, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Page is acceptable. Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Page to remain live. Edit Patriot 11:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — EditPatriot (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Benpporter (talk • contribs). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for epic fail of NACTOR. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote a "rising actor" or "highlight ... young talent". He has to be "risen" already. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon to be included on Wikipedia. Pilean (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Love Island (2015 TV series), since he briefly appeared there but is not notable enough to qualify for an article of his own, failing WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The article was originally a redirect before a user made it into an article. Pahunkat (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails NACTOR and GNG; if redirecting, List of Love Island (2015 TV series) contestants is the preferred option as he isn't mentioned at Love Island (2015 TV series) nor should he be really Spiderone 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. The evidence does not suggest even one of his roles was in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON - Also, seems there is multiple sockpuppets established to promote this page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Northup[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is from local organizations. ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.

Delete. This is a spam page for the sauce company; no claim to notability here at all. Very minor coverage not amounting to notability:
1 N local flavour coverage citing a couple X of the Y awards, not significant

2 N county blog, not journalistic coverage and not significant

3 N local coverage; article is primarily a recipe

4 N not a source at all

5 N alumni coverage and so not independent; coverage is of the business and not her

6 N local coverage; not significant, but actually about her. However, independence is questionable - the photo in the article is sourced to the subject, and the article promotes one of her businesses at the bottom.

If anything, the sources better support an article about the sauce company than about her, though I think it would be tough to defend that article too. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom. Pilean (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking required depth-of-coverage for WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam, see [8]. MER-C 15:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undisclosed paid for spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 17:18, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gut (Newfoundland and Labrador)[edit]

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

This looks like it has no encyclopedic relevance whatsover. Has previously been prodded as a settlement, and converted into a single-sentence stub about "bodies of water". Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 19:01, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesh Gattem[edit]

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

Key issues with the article:

No reliable sources to confirm Guinness World Record and Limca book of records entries. Searches in either of the records' website do not return any results of the claim. Guinness website instead lists someone named Steven J. Backman to hold the record [[9]]. Here is also an archived copy of the 2017 record book [[10]] which do not list the subject's name. It is likely some local records touted as Limca/Guinness. However, merely receiving some awards doesn't confer automatic notability.
despite some tabloid coverage I will take the claims of the Guinness World Record with a pinch of salt as fake records are not uncommon in the region [[11]] [[12]].
Whitewashing using fake Hon. Doctorate from a bogus university. Following sources suggest it is nothing more than a diploma-mill.^[1]^[2]^[3]
Overall it fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. The article is meant for promotion and therefore, misuse of Wikipedia.

Also to note, the creator of the article has COI which is being discussed here [[13]] RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and several issues with the integrity of the article and its conception listed above.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim of notability in the article is an obscure Guinness World Records listing, which is not enough for an article. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RationalPuff: So, you think he managed to spam Entire Government of India along with then President of India with fake record? The Guinness Record Holder Store Code IDs are as follows: ID:417642630, Code: epls2390EP. FYI, not all records are published on annual edition of book, but only a few does. By using the reference codes I've provided above anyone from Guinness can confirm the record. And when it comes to records section, there are more than one award that contributes to notability which include India book of records; Rashtriya Gauram Samman by NYAFI in 2018; Ugadi Puraskar by Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2018; National Youth Award in 2019 by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India; World Records India for Miniature Matchstick carving. Yes I agree the article is invalid if it only cites Guinness world record holder, but in this case it isn't.--iMahesh (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: It hardly matters what I or someone thinks. We can lay out the facts which will be good enough to reach a consensus. Verifiability is in question here. We should aim to address this. Taking photos with the Govt. officials doesn't mean they vetted the claims. I'm not sure how someone verifies your above info other than what's on the public domain. All Guinness records are searchable, however, registration is required to search full database. Some other records you mentioned are not credible enough — there are hundreds of such record books around the globe all offering "World Records". Moreover, the nobility is not established on the back of the awards and records which I find pretty much run-of-the-mill and often suspicious wiki entries. Bogus PhD does raise questions on integrity which further reinforce doubts on the whole thing. RationalPuff (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: Why he was seen holding this 2017 record book when his record was not included in it?[[14]]RationalPuff (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RationalPuff: Point to mention

High Priority, is he seriously using Wikipedia as a advertisement on his website?--iMahesh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had so many important things rather than debating about subject liability on the claimed record. Articles can always be restored from deletion when required. And good job RationalPuff finding out the fake university. Please remember that Guinness never publishes all of the records on its annual edition, but only a few important records does. I do agree that having a Guinness record doesn't imply an article on Wikipedia, but when it comes the verify-ability of the record, above data data provided by me can always help. Since Wikipedia is a open-source and above data can never be retrieved without the subject's contact it would be of no use here. I should have probably stayed in Geography, Demographical and Architectural related articles rather than stepping into this BLP pile. Please remember to nominate articles for deletion rather than just tagging them with SDs and PrODs from next time..--iMahesh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Brigati[edit]

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

Deputy administrators don't pass WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Ram1055 said in this reference "Here"., the Deputy Admin is also next in line if something were to happen to the Admin.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dillon251992 (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holds an administrative position below the threshold of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christiana Boateng (footballer)[edit]

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

Article has existed for a long time but I can't see evidence of notability. No caps listed at Soccerway, Eurosport, World Football, Soccerpunter and Goalzz. It doesn't even look like she has been capped at U20 let alone senior level, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL in any case. Fails WP:GNG too. Spiderone 17:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even pass our insanely permissive inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:13, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Alhassan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. According to Eurosport, Playmakerstats, Goalzz, Flashscore and GSA, has only represented Ghana at youth level so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 17:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Rita, California[edit]

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

Not at all clear what is going on here. At the supposed location, there is an "El Rita St", really just a short shared driveway for a cluster of a few houses. It's right next to the railroad, so possibly a rail spot, but I also found a reference to an "El Rita Cafe" in Keene (which this could be considered part of) damaged badly in a 1945 flood. GNIS is sourced to a 1947 DMA map; it doesn't show up on topos. Perhaps Durham explains what was here, but at the moment this fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under the entry for Keene, Durham states there was once a place named El Rita near the Keene post office. Durham says place is marked on the Cummings Mountain (1943) quadrangle. No indication that it was a community and nothing else to indicate that it was ever notable. Glendoremus (talk) 20:11, 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 merge to International cricket in 2007–08. selectively. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 2007–08[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into International cricket in 2007–08. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with Smerge makes sense - and, again, I can't think of a better destination than Lugnuts' suggestion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with selective merge into International cricket in 2007–08. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with selective merge per above. Deus et lex (talk) 07:08, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agility Association of Canada[edit]

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

Fails GNG. An extensive search has found no sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, a search of Google books reveals several mentions in books, typically in a list of such organisations,but nothing that “addresses the topic directly and in detail”. Cavalryman (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources in the page, no sign of any in-depth coverage via Gbooks, Scholar or JSTOR, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability for this company. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:57, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pure-N-Heart Children's Choir[edit]

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

2010 article about a local youth mission choir. It won an award but I don’t think it ever passed WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure-N-Heart. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Just a local music group that a WP:SPA created an article on a decade ago, that somehow went unnoticed until now. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pure-N-Heart[edit]

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

2010 article about a local youth mission. I don’t think it ever passed WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure-N-Heart Children's Choir. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Just a local music group that a WP:SPA created an article on a decade ago, that somehow went unnoticed until now. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:57, 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 redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fenton (guitarist)[edit]

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

Guitarist with Siouxsie and the Banshees for a few months in their early days and was soon replaced. He co-wrote 3 of the bands songs, none of which are notable in their own right. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER John B123 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Works with WP:COMPOSER, a songwriter is notable if "1 has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." which is "Love in a Void (song)". This is the case for Peter Fenton, two of his most famous songs / compositions were included on two commercially successful records: the Siouxsie and the Banshees' debut album (including Fenton's co-composition "Carcass")[15] and on their first compilation album Once Upon a Time: The Singles (including Fenton's co-composition "Love in a Void")[16] - that compilation LP was certified gold [17].

"Love in a Void" (which is included on Once Upon a Time: The Singles) is one of the most famous songs of Siouxsie and the Banshees. He also appears with the band performing a song in Don Letts's film the Punk Rock Movie which was released on VHS and DVD. Carliertwo (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Notability of an album does not confer notability onto the individual tracks of the album. --John B123 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reply to this instead -->per WP:COMPOSER, a songwriter is notable if "1 has credit for ... co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". You're acting as if you didn't read it. Carliertwo (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read it, and my point is none of Fenton's co-compositions are notable. --John B123 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notable song criteria is not included in WP:COMPOSER point 1 which is the most relevant guideline in this case. I would pass beyond the fallacious non neutral presentation at the top of this page. Carliertwo (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course notability of the song is part of WP:COMPOSER: either lyrics or music for a notable composition. How else can a composition be determined to be notable or not? --John B123 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, you're missapplying WP:COMPOSER, it is said songwriters, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria and then you read just point 1. Plus, you should read "Love in a Void (song)" as it is a notable composition. Carliertwo (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misapplying anything, I simply responded to your above request: Could you reply to this instead -->per WP:COMPOSER, a songwriter is notable if "1 has credit for ... co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". Obviously I hadn't read Love in a Void (song) at the time of my last comment as you hadn't created it then. Having read it now, I would suggest it's another candidate for an AfD. May I ask why you created a new article rather than making the redirect Love in a Void into an article? --John B123 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't still addressed anything to the question if you considered Love in a Void as a notable composition, and if you still don't, on which ground ?. Carliertwo (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought "I would suggest it's another candidate for an AfD" was pretty self-explanatory. However if you want me to be more specific: The song has appeared on two albums, one of which was a compilation; on the b-side of Mittageisen in Germany and as a double a-side in the UK but only "Mittageisen" charted on the UK Singles Chart, where it peaked at number 47. None of this, nor anything else in the article, shows enough notability to pass WP:NSONG. --John B123 (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the UK charts never mentioned in their list that a single is a double A side seven inch single. It would be too much details for their chart. What matters is what the artist intended to do, releasing a double A side record and giving the same importance to the two songs. The "Love In a Void (song)" has been successfully reviewed by Spiderone, sorry for you. 12:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why endorse the statement "but only "Mittageisen" charted on the UK Singles Chart, where it peaked at number 47" in the article Mittageisen by adding a reference? [18] --John B123 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I said, the UK Singles chart never listed a double A side single mentioning the titles of the 2 songs, they only mentioned the first song. But the next sentence in the Mittageisen article says it all, "Nevertheless, "Love in a Void"—but not "Mittageisen"—was included on the band's 1981 singles compilation Once Upon a Time: The Singles, which compiled all their A-sides up to that time" which was correct, it meant that the band considered Love in a Void as a A-side track when doing the track listing of this ten track compilation of singles. Carliertwo (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees, the relevant guidelines here are GNG and MUSICBIO. COMPOSER is intended for individuals who are primarily songwriters or composers, not members of bands who happen to have songwriting credits. And, as John B123 points out above, even if we were to apply COMPOSER, Fenton falls short. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're distorting the essence of the text of the section "Criteria for composers". Nowhere it is said that the composer has to work on their own.

Point 1 of WP:COMPOSER, clearly includes the word "co-writing". and then Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. Fenton's co-composition "Love in a Void (song)" was covered by Darkthrone and rap singer Akala, plus it featured in the movie soundtrack of the 2016 film 20th Century Women . I won't let two people who can't be impartial in this discussion as both pressed the deletion button, one by doing a bold edit without even opening a discussion first and the second by deleting while filing a section at redirect, to decide on their own. This will need a large wp:consensus in the end. Carliertwo (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, don't you think that with Love in a Void (song), it is time now that one of you two withdraws the tag at Peter Fenton (guitarist), do I need to invite more people to join to this discussion ? Carliertwo (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misapplying COMPOSER, and I don't really feel like arguing with you more. The discussion is published to a daily AfD list which generally is sufficient to get additional participation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This musician co-composed a song which is notable, so there isn't any justification to delete a biography. Carliertwo (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above two threads now appear disjointed and in some ways random as Carliertwo has extensively modified their earlier posts. For the original flow see [19] for the "Keep" thread and [20] for the "Restore redirect" thread. I would also object strongly to this comment [21] (subsequently reworded).--John B123 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Edit to add, I also object to Carliertwo deleting part of my comments here. [22]--John B123 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is inaccurate, an user is invited to not correct their edit once an answer has been added by someone else after. Pointing a archived diff that had been correct whereas no one has read it yet, just shows how fragile your case is. Carliertwo (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is inaccurate? You have changed your comments multiple times after others have responded to them? You made an uncivil post or that you deleted part of another users comment? --John B123 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very low from your part to mention this. Again, the answer had been corrected before anyone reads it and posts an answer. Digging stuff like you do, shows how much lame your present file is. Carliertwo (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment. I have no doubt that a songwriter of a famous band who co-composed a notable song, which was covered by many artists and also included in the soundtrack of a recent big Hollywood production, will have his biography on wikipedia in the end. Without mentioning that this musician also appeared with his band in a key movie of the late seventies by a film maker. Carliertwo (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees. In noting both the songwriting co-credits and the listed sources, I'm simply not seeing any level of notability outside of this subject's relation to the band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Siouxsie and the Banshees or List of Siouxsie and the Banshees members. He doesn't seem to have done anything of note outside of Siouxsie and the Banshees, but there is some information in this article that is not currently included in the band's articles that would be worth merging. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. John McGeogh he isn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees or List of Siouxsie and the Banshees members (whichever is more appropriate per policy). Kudos to John B123 and Rosguill above for handling the incessant bludgeoning of this process by Carliertwo, who has been decisively defeated on the meaning of WP:NCOMPOSER. That guideline applies to pro songwriters with compositions adopted by widespread performers and stage productions, not someone who co-wrote a few songs while a member of a band. For Mr. Fenton the relevant guideline is WP:NMUSICBIO, which he fails as someone with no notability outside of the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:38, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bursar[edit]

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

This is a mess. It starts with a Wiktionary etymology, then goes on full WP:OR mode with the description and ends with a trivia-like list of 'notable bursars' (also in fiction). BEFORE didn't find much - there are some job descriptions and regulations, and the best I found is this one page essay at [23]. Since there is no Wikipedia:Notability (occupations) we default to GNG and I don't see how this article meets it. The concept of a bursar can and is defined in a Wiktionary ([24]) and that may be enough, given the lack of attention to this position/occupation in secondary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable post. I can't see any good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an entire book on the subject: The Work of the Bursar. Here's another one. Here's a third. The nominator's BEFORE seems to be broken. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: The first book seems reliable and on topic, good find. The third on the other hand is just an example of you doing a quick google search and not verifying the relevance of the subject, I am afraid, as it concerns a very specific entity called "All Souls Bursarships" and not the concept of bursar(ship) in general. I cannot verify whether your second source contains any significant discussion of this concept, and its inclusion in the title is not sufficient for us to conclude that the topic is discussed in-depth in the article. If you have verified that it is, please provide a relevant page range, and preferably, a quotation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is indeed a detailed history of the bursars of All Souls College. I am familiar with this institution and, insofar as the topic includes a list of notable bursars, consider that the source will be useful for our purpose. I do not plan to provide further details because, oh look, it's snowing! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current state of the article is not global enough nor adequately sourced, but there are clearly sources that can create an article that covers the history, function and changes over time of the position that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. Because this is not a dictionary definition it should also consider other positions that are similar to that of a bursar, but under different names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Which sources? Andrew found one, but nothing else seems particularly good. If you see another source worth considering, can you tell me what it is? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Pilean (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally thought argument; I am impressed.. :) (joking) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Piotrus that only one good source has been given here. It's a good start, but more is needed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup. All we're here to determine is whether the topic is notable, not how good or well-sourced the current article is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and if only we had enough sources to establish notability, I would vote to keep it since the article could be improved. Since we don't, however, it is reasonable to conclude the item cannot be improved (unless better sources are published in the future) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that it is reasonable to conclude the item cannot be improved just because it doesn't currently have enough sources is ludicrous and goes against Wikipedia policy and practice. This is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't exactly good, or the topic easy to search online because of all the job descriptions and advertisements, but the office dates back to the Middle Ages 1 2. It's mentioned in the Domesday Book 3. Narky Blert (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more to the concept of "bursar" than what a dictionary can explain (as can be seen from the talk page) so it is useful to have this article. Deletionists love nothing more than a good evacuation, but they can do that on their own without bothering us here. NRPanikker (talk) 11:48, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Chaser ~Stardust of Dreams~[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no sources. Article has been tagged for notability issues since July 2011 with no improvement. lullabying (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero WP:VG/SE hits, zero Metacritic reviews. Also highly promotional writing. IceWelder [✉] 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's hard for dōjin games to have articles since lots of them are given out at conventions and aren't covered by notable websites or magazines. There aren't any sources I could find from reliable publications either through Google or the custom WP:VG/S search engine. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I agree with Namcokid47 on what he stated. It's brutal but not impossible find sources talking about a certain dōjin game (aside from rare ocassions such as Game Urara magazine), given that most of them are given away at Comiket. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music Lingua[edit]

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

2010 article created by a near-SPA about a language school and its methods. Most of the article isn’t about the topic, it’s about second language learning in general. The part that is about the business is sourced to its own website. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nom, this reads like spam. NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A brochure-like article setting out this firm's wares but very little is about the company itself (as was pointed out by an IP on the article Talk page 10 years ago), and that is sourced only to their own website. My searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 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. Closing this one due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India[edit]

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

A self published book by author owned publishing company, lacking third party RS coverage. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Only has few mentions in primary or non reliable sources. Reference used in the article are primary sources. Tagged for notability issue since June 2020 Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Walrus ji. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom LeBron4 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published books are almost never notable, there is nothing to suggest this is one of the extremely rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and the arguments given above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like this work has been cited occasionally in places like Cambridge University Press, however from what I can see it's usually mentioned in relation to the publisher as an example of the types of work it releases. Google Scholar seems to suggest that this is a frequent use of the source. I can't access this journal article, but I'd wager that it's likely more of the same if the book is mentioned in the body of the article. Long story short, I can't really find anything that would show that the book is notable outside of its author or the publishing company he created. I'd say that this should be redirected, but I'm not sure if the author or the publisher would be the better redirect target or if it's really necessary, given that the publisher article doesn't mention it and it's not really something I'd see as a common search term. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Balmy[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG despite passing WP:NFOOTY with its 2 appearances in a fully professional league. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player with ongoing career who meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. There are sources out there - I've just added two ones I found through Google very quickly. Has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE? GiantSnowman 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - They are routine references there with them being transfer moves that I am not counting in this. HawkAussie (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. What I find interesting is the fact that his two pro appearences are in two different countries, that seems pretty notable to me.Muur (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Passes WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 23 years and has an ongoing career so little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst there isn't much to indicate a strong GNG pass, the player does pass NFOOTBALL and has plenty of opportunity to build on their appearances, it wouldn't make sense to delete it at this moment in time Spiderone 12:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Ashrams[edit]

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

A self published book by author owned publishing company, lacking third party RS coverage. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Only has passing mentions in a few non reliable sources. Reference used in the article are primary sources. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable self-published book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm running into the same issue here that I did with the other book. It is discussed somewhat, but mostly in relation to something or someone else - in this case it's discussed more in relation to Goel's overall arguments and beliefs. I also want to note that it looks like the 1988 and the 1994/5 books had slightly different titles, as I'm finding evidence that the 94/5 (the date of publication seems to differ somewhat depending on the source) was titled "Catholic Ashrams: Sannyasins or Swindlers?". I'm thinking that the sourcing I'm finding could be used to establish notability for the author and include some info about this in his article, but I don't know if there's really enough out there to firmly establish notability for an independent article, at least what I'm seeing in English. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this were restructured so that it was an encyclopedic article on the subject of the book, rather than an article on a book, it might be worth having. However it is not the job of WP to review books. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT. Lacks any sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, and was created by a WP:SPA. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Newshunter12, very good observation. The creator indeed seems to be a WP:SPA. There are a few more of them creating articles on this author. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:22, 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) 23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tollet Street[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an unremarkable two-block long street in Greater London. I don't find anything other than directories mentioning the street. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated in the nomination, there's nothing notable or remarkable about this short street in London,and certainly no significant coverage in reliable sources to show it meets the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be much to say about this street. What little there is doesn't justify a dedicated article and can easily be accommodated elsewhere if anybody feels the need. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable street. Pilean (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to suggest the street is notable. The fact that George Lusk lived there does not make it notable. Dunarc (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this street is notable, million more be. If we keep this article, we will end up with half the articles on Wikipedia being about streets, and it will only be that low because keeping this article would force more broad inclusion criteria for everything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 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 keep. Comments in the discussion suggest the subject would meet WP:GNG based on the sources provided in the article. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Bahorich[edit]

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

This was declined as not meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Not being able to decide what to do with this, I accepted the draft and brought it here for a community decision.

She is head of the Texas State Board of Education. In some states, I think this might be a statewide elected office and she would therefore be notable. In Texas, it's an appointment by the Governor. I don't want to open the floodgates to heads of US state departments, but the Board of Education in many states is a very influential office, and there seems to be significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient sources for general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She holds statewide office, and there are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:NBIO. Edge3 (talk) 01:41, 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 Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

End-Time Mission Broadcasting Service[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Stub articles about a church's broadcasting activities in the Philippines. I suggest all of these articles be deleted or merged into the parent organization's article, Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch). FalconK (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three into Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch). Foxnpichu (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge End-Time Mission Broadcasting Service to Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch): Though the broadcast arm's article has a bigger size than the parent, it's not notable enough to have a standalone article. That said, it's best to merge most of them to the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DZAT and DWET-AM: Its stations are licensed per 2011 and 2019 NTC listings. The sources in the respective articles indicate some of the station's programming. That said, both of the articles are good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not so sure they pass WP:BCAST, which in the end is a loose guideline and not a set of conditions for deciding notability. For sure these don't seem to meet the WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three into Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch). // Timothy :: talk 01:12, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nork Deddog[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT created in place of a redirect to Warhammer 40k from which this is a character. No citations and no possible claim to notability. I doubt there is even much value in merging this, but I don't know the area that well. FalconK (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unsourced article has existed for 15 years. While close to the record, it is not quite the record for long standing unsourced cruft. To put everything in perspective it was apparanently not until 2006 that any attempts to create a notability guideline for fictional characters were undertaken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT, he is not even mentioned at List of Warhammer Fantasy characters, which is a testament to his irrelevance and makes a redirect useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:48, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Landi-Jons[edit]

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

During new page review, found this stub bio with no citations to independent reliable sources; not much comes up about him, but this isn't my area. Nominating here instead of PRODding to see if anyone who is better at sourcing things like this can find anything or meet WP:NMMA. FalconK (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights, both of which he lost. There's also no indication that WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO are met. Articles on this person were also deleted four times as Jose Landi [25] and the last deletion was upheld at a deletion review WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 October. Since he's retired I don't think he's going to get any more notable and I am skeptical that anyone whose article has already been deleted 5 times has much of a claim of being WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights under top promotion and also fails GNG for info on fights are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried looking up the claim of "ISKA Kickboxing Champion" since that would make him notable for kickboxing. I couldn't find any source on that much less lists of all the ISKA champs so until further notice, I'm for deletion.HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bergen[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Many of the IMDb references don't mention her, just her film-making partner. [26] is the only ref with substantial discussion of her, which is local coverage of a local film-maker. Her Twitter account [27] is a stream of dubious awards for films that I can't verify exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. One local piece is not enough to support a biographical article, and there does not appear to be anything else out there in terms of substantive coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to not meeting GNG, it doesn't look like her filmography is notable either and the article seems to have been created by a single-purpose account.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people on the production side of filmmaking are not default notable. We need reliable sources to show notability, not IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 Sandstein 12:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HIF strengthening factor[edit]

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

When I search for "HIF strengthening factor" online I find very few writings on this topic. At an earlier point I considered redirecting to Deferiprone and then to Deferoxamine, but it may also include minoxidil and caffeine in its formulation. This may also be connected to the appearance of the Tomorrowlabs article about a company that is promoting this name. Each substance is notable, and it probably is a good invention if it actually can make hair grow back on bald skin, but at the moment "HIF strengthening factor" appears to not be notable, so this page should be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Graeme Bartlett:.

thank you for checking out my article. I saw you redirected it to Deferoxamine and nominated it for deletion.

I think this is not right because

1. HIF strengthening factor is a molecule not limited to the example of Deferoxamine. In fact it is at least also Deferiprone used and called HSF in the scientific literature. See this paper for example where this is the case (HSF as a term is mentioned in the manuscript 3 times): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32479616/

2. The article gives insights on the very important regenerative aspects of HIF stimulation. HIF stimulation as an aspect of Deferoxamine is not covered in the Deferoxamine article let alone the implications of it for regneration.

In conlcusion I think my article on the new molecule type HSF that stimulates HIF signaling for regenerative purposes (wound healing, scar mitigation, skin and hair regeneration) has merit, adds important information and should be kept as a lone standing article.

Best Gambit

ad 1) also Sodium Gluconate, Minoxidil and DMOG have been used in this context (meaning HIF strengthening/stabilisation for regeneration). I can't see how this could fit all under Deferoxamine. It would be short of important aspects. I also checked out the other molecule articles and the chelation therapy article for a potential merger. However, the HIF strengthening effect is via inhomogenious mechanistics (one time via pro chelation, another time via PHD inhibition) and therefore does't fit in either of the other articles as a subheading or so. This further confirmed my belief that this should be kept as a stand alone article.

Best

Gambit21 (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge I guess, though not sure theres anything of use here, to Hypoxia-inducible factor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gambit21 has now been blocked as a sock of Raphael1234567 so the article could now be speedily deleted with G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on not getting a single Scholar hit. If no one is using the term in scientific discourse, we should not have even a redirect for it. WP is not in the business of popularizing neologisms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of 80's[edit]

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

Unsourced; a previous version mentioned "Schrier's Diseases of the Kidney" as a source without any detail. I found The "rule of 80" for pH analysis of arterial blood among several other rules of 80, which appears to be what is discussed here, though I can't even find an abstract for that article. The sourcing is not good enough for a medical topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely unsourced. Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total Software Deployment[edit]

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

Notability concerns. "4sysops" appears to be a community blogging platform, and other pages found are press-releases or content mills. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 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 merge to Cyprus-Turkey maritime zones dispute. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Homeland[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of the existing Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute article. Perhaps merging is another option? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cyprus-Turkey maritime zones dispute. The information in the article is notable, but it does not need to be separate from the aforementioned page. LeBron4 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per LeBron4. Normaly I would rather go for Delete, as the Blue Homeland is already covered thoroughly in the article Aegean dispute. Therefore I do not find it useful as a standalone article. I shall note that the article's creation was plagued with too many problems, especially WP:POV and it seemed like a WP:POVFORK of the Aegean dispute article. However, LeBron4's Merge with Cyprus-Turkey maritime zones dispute can be considered too, since it is WP:RELEVANT to the subject. After all, Cyprus is one of multiple countries whose maritime rights were violated by the Blue Homeland doctrine, along with Greece's, Egypt's and Syria's). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident: We were talking about WP:NPOV, right? It seems that you attach great importance to this issue from the Greek side. - Caskination ? 21:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems that you attach great importance to this issue from the Greek side." What this is supposed to mean? The issue here is that both of the articles you had created, Blue Homeland and Cihat Yaycı do not meet Wikipedia's standards. The first is nominated for deletion by user Shellwood, while the second is turned into a draft by user MrsSnoozyTurtle and moved to: Draft:Cihat Yaycı due to the outstanding issues they are having, and they have nothing to do with "Greek sides" or whatever. Given your failure to acknowledge the problems your articles are having, your claim that you "already know Wikipedia very well": [28] isn't true. For a start, it could be a good idea that you accustom yourself with WP:FIVEPILLARS. Thank you and have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llanada, California[edit]

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

Topos and aerials as far back as I can go show the same two farms/ranches facing each other across the road. NOt sure why this ever was given a name, but it's not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmarkets[edit]

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

Only 1 of the 3 sources is reliable; fails WP:GNG. It also seems like the developers and users have more or less abandoned the project since this article was first created almost 6 years ago. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Can't establish notability. OfficerCow (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weak delete. There are some articles on this that appear to be in some industry/crypto sites. The issue I'm running into is that there are other projects with similar names that make it difficult to distinguish which project they are writing about. ~RAM (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I ran into the same issue. There used to be a Polish crypto exchange with the same name. Crypto industry sources aren’t reliable for notability though. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 17:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the marketplace aside from a Guardian article. ASTIG😎 _{(HAPPY NEW YEAR!)} 17:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the others above. There haven't been any RS's on this since 2014. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:59, 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.

^ https://www.edexlive.com/news/2019/jun/21/peace-be-with-you-how-simple-it-is-to-buy-a-dubious-dlitt-from-this-university-6718.html
^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/spend-a-few-bucks-get-a-dlitt/article27256016.ece
^ https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/cops-stop-fake-doctorate-ceremony-893506.html

[1] ttps://www.edexlive.com/news/2019/jun/21/peace-be-with-you-how-simple-it-is-to-buy-a-dubious-dlitt-from-this-university-6718.html

[2] ttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/spend-a-few-bucks-get-a-dlitt/article27256016.ece

[3] ttps://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/cops-stop-fake-doctorate-ceremony-893506.html

[1]

[2]

[3]