Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 30

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Patterson

Marcus Patterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable basketballer, never played for the majors, fails WP:NBASKETBALL and isn't notable for anything else. I removed a slew of poorly sourced content and fake blackhat SEO sites. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The article satisfy WP:GNG , the league (Proliga Portugal) for which the player is playing is considered as the second most important basketball league in Portugal . The page for CA queluz has not been updated since a while ,below I have given a brief info about the team.Until 2007 CA Queluz played in Liga Portuguesa de Basquetebol I Divisão which is considered as the third league in Portugal.On October 2020 , CA Queluz started playing in the Proliga .On 24 October 2020 ,Marcus Patterson played his first game in the Proliga where he played for his team CA Queluz.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Starkbutler (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Keep The subject does appear to have played professionally and thus meets the subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 08:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Playing professionally is not enough to pass any criteria. A basketball figure is presumed to be notable if he passes WP:NBASKETBALL but none of the leagues Patterson has played in are listed there. Furthermore, he does not pass WP:GNG at all. The only sources I find seem to be, as Praxidicae has pointed out, paid articles on spam sites. Alvaldi (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• We cannot directly say that the player has not appeared professionally , as its not listed here WP:NBASKETBALL but we cannot ignore that Proliga (Portugal) is considered as the second most important league in Portugal .Player such as Nate Bowie has played in this league .The sources pointed out by Praxidicae may be Promotional and were removed instantly but there are other sources which help the subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. Starkbutler (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would, you know, actually provide those sources. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The references are cited in the article and here are few more

References

A player can be notable regardless of the league he plays in. But playing in the Proliga (Portugal) does not make a player notable (I'm not even sure that the above mentioned Nate Bowie passes WP:GNG). Of the four sources, [1] and [2] do not go towards establishing that Patterson passes WP:GNG, with the first just being a player listing and the second is not independent of the subject, as it is an article from a college team he played for. At a first glance, the other two might go towards WP:GNG. The Bronx Times and Portugal Resident articles both seem to be independent of the subject but are as far as I can see both are from minor publications and both articles are published within a month of each other. (The Bronx article also seems to be the same as this one). I'm not seeing significant coverage over a significant period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A coverage is a coverage rather than it being from a minor or highly reputable source, the main thing is that the article should be unbiased and cover the subject in a neutral manner(WP:BIASED). I think time frame of the article doesn’t matter as it not mentioned anywhere as a criteria.Here are few more sources I found on the internet Starkbutler (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Coverage is not just coverage. The subject needs to have coverage in reliable and independent sources over a sufficiently significant period of time. Both the [3] and [4] are sponsored articles. The theonlinebeacon.com article and troyrecord.com article both only mention him once. Alvaldi (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Keep. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, but a simple Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, including: (1) this from Yahoo! News (national coverage), (2) this from AM NewYork, (3) this from the Times Union, (4) this from the Bronx Times, (5) this from New York Weekly, (6) this from the Central Jersey newspaper group, (7) this from the News Ledger, (8) this from Mid Day, and (9) this from the Deccan Herald. Also, (10) this, (11) this, and (12) this are significant coverage but I'm not sure if Portugal Resident, "InstaBulletin", and Algarve Daily News are reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the article was submitted to AfD less than four days after creation, a bit quick on the trigger given the extent of coverage turned up in a simple Google search. This article can and should be improved, but deletion is not called for. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Every single source you've given is unreliable or paid for. Not a single one is independent nor is it coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We have significant coverage from multiple independent news sources -- an extraordinary and unusual level coverage for any athlete. At first glance, your contention that all of this coverage is "unreliable or paid for" strikes me as preposterous. But I am open to hearing your evidence: Do you have any actual evidence that this very substantial coverage across a dozen or so media platforms is all paid for??? Cbl62 (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted this is a brand post which is a PR piece. An interview, an established blackhat SEO site, unless of course you believe a PR firm writing about someone is genuine journalism, another established blackhat SEO site, another blackhat SEO site (most of which are just copies of other sources.), brand/sponsored content and the rest have already been discussed. All of this can be yours for a low-low price GRINCHIDICAE🎄 08:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Thank you for your reply. A few points in response:

(1) FWIW, your comment that "it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted" comes across as snide and does not aid in persuading the target audience.

(2) I actually did examine the sources and found it odd that news outlets in South Asia would be reporting on the topic. Checking further, I found that Wikipedia's articles about the Deccan Herald and Mid Day describe them as legitimate, even award winning, news outlets. That said, I appreciate your further link to digitalprworld and agree that these sources should be discounted.

(3) As for Yahoo! News, our own Wikipedia article on the outlet confirms it as a reliable source, even noting that in 2019 it was ranked as the sixth most reliable global news source, ahead of Fox News. That said, I take heed of the reference in digitalprworld and find such practices to be quite discouraging. [If Yahoo! News has sunk to such depths, should we mention that in our Wikipedia article about the outlet?]

(4) Your claim that this piece should be discounted as an interview is invalid. The piece is an in-depth biographical profile on Patterson. The fact that the article includes a handful of quotes from the subject is normal journalistic practice and does not render it non-independent or unreliable. (I am tempted to say "it's almost as if you didn't read" the article, but I'll resist doing so.)

(5) You incorrectly assert that "the rest have been discussed". In fact, you have completely ignored significant coverage in many of the sources cited above, including: (a) "Bronx native discusses basketball and mental health amid COVID-19", AM New York; (b) Former Sage basketball player has new focus", Times-Union; and (c) "Professional basketball player gets help from local trainer to get career back on track", Central Jersey newspaper group.

(6) My conclusion on a further review: Your AfD nomination was made in good faith and raises legitimate concerns about "blackhat" sites. However, this is an athlete who has an interesting story - climbing from The Bronx and Division III to potential rookie of the year in Portugal. That story has garnered significant attention, and even excluding the "blackhat" sites that you highlighted, the coverage remains significant and warrants a "keep" determination. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because a genrically trustable source publishes it doesn't mean that every piece is reliable and more importantly, you are conflating reliability with independent coverage. You're trying to argue that press releases and sponsored advertisements make for independent coverage and you're quite simply 100% wrong. Being interesting doesn't make one notable and I am not going to elaborate on this for an administrator. Your reading of my tone is irrelevant. Cheers. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not conflated anything. Nor am I arguing that sponsored advertisements count toward notability. It appears that you have fallen into the trap (one that it's easy for all of us do at time) of digging in your heels rather than keeping an open mind to coverage that may have been overlooked at the time of the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. FWIW, there is an article dedicated to Marcus Patterson in Yahoo!, which is a major website.[5] desmay (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

yeah, no that's self published/paid for trash. It's the equivalent of a press release, except worse because it's not required to be accurate. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The article on Yahoo is from the website Latestly.com (see here), a website where you can apparently pay someone on Fiverr.com to write an article about you. Same goes for Mid-Day. Actually, most of these sites that have articles about him are the same sites you can pay someone on fiverr.com an article about you on. Alvaldi (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Alvaldi: Yes, unfortunately @Cbl62: needs to get up to speed on paid for article writing services, their unfortunately poorly researched Keep vote here does them a significant dis-service. Nick (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick: As noted above, I do not approve of paid article writing services and therefore would discount some of the coverage. That said, there has been no contention that the following four feature stories are paid: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I have no stake in this article and am simply calling balls and strikes as I see them. Best, Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam, given the black hat SEO sourcing. I've blocked the creator for spamming. MER-C 15:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - Most of the sources they've used were heavily spammed on Wikidata last year and was choice of most spammer or paid editors. Also this player doesn't seems to satisfy notability criteria. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacking multiple independent, reliable sources of significant coverage. Not everything on the internet is automatically reliable. Enough concern expressed by others, and I'm not convinced about these sources. Contrary to some comments above, WP:NBASKETBALL only applies to leagues explicitly listed, not just any pro league.—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Shribman

Matthew Shribman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See talk for full details. Article was created as a promotional piece and continues to be edited to support the promotional activities of the subject. Infowars420 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Leaning toward delete. There are a lot of citations, but the quality and depth of sourcing are deficient. Many of the news articles referenced just have brief mentions of his activities, rather than coverage of his background, and the festival lineup/his band's promotional material do nothing for notability. He's not a scientist (despite the peculiar insistence some of those articles have in calling him such), so it's harder to gauge whether this is just TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources are all either not reliable sources or mentions in passing. A google news search shows a couple articles discussing a documentary he made but nothing more; no significant coverage of him personally in WP:RS and so fails WP:GNG. Something is fishy, however - the page was created by a likely COI single-purpose account User:Magd2884, but the nominator is also a single-purpose account with no contributions to Wikipedia besides the PROD and AfD process on this article. Be wary, but if I stumbled upon this article I'd've brought it here myself. FalconK (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per FalconK. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Disagree on the proposal for deletion. In an ecological emergency, should we be deleting environmentalists and science communicators? Furthermore, what makes an environmentalist noteworthy? Is it the impact of their work or its coverage? MIT Media Lab’s Pantheon study makes it clear that cultural noteworthy-ness / coverage is moving away from thinkers and towards “celebrities”. Should Wikipedia follow this trend too? Looking at articles of other science presenters Samantha Yammine, Lee Constable, Emily Grossman, the subject is of similar noteworthiness. Agreed on the need to improve this article. User:Infowars420, I note that you take general opposition to people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and I appreciate this; it’s important. However, what is the purpose of an article like this? It does seem to have begun as autobiographical… but one questions to what end. It does not seem to be self-promotion for personal gain – most of his environmental work seems to be voluntary, and he is running an educational charity, supported by a grant from the UK government. Meanwhile, his work is having a significant positive impact. User:JoelleJay, to your point about “scientist”, the OED defines a scientist as a person who is studying or has expert knowledge in one or more of the natural or physical sciences, which is fulfilled by the subject. The Science Council has a narrower definition on their website, which seems to be disputed by… scientists. I will work on an edit today, and gather better sources. Full disclosure – I am part of a small community working to support science communicators. JHay556 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

My comment applied more to the requirements for academic notability--if he was a tenure-track professor there would be a good chance his credentials would meet that notability guideline in the future. That said, he does not perform scientific research and his expertise is disputable (a master's (or PhD with no strong followup publication record after) does not and should not establish someone as an "expert"--this would confer dangerous degrees of authority to unqualified people). Especially in environmental science (and vaccines etc.) we should personally promote stringent criteria for whom we call an "expert", as having any wiggle room leads to media propagation of inaccurate descriptions and popular acceptance of unqualified and less-qualified opinions. That doesn't diminish the importance of environmental activists and communicators. You don't need advanced scientific understanding to communicate awareness and information to the public, and being able to do so in a way that reaches the most people is extremely valuable. This is why we need skilled science journalists and activists who can engage communities across socioeconomic and age strata; just because they should not be consulted as experts on the topics they disseminate doesn't mean they aren't a critical component of science education. If this guy has received significant coverage for his science communication, he could very well meet the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Agreed on these points Joelle, though I'm also not proposing that we list him on Wikipedia as a scientist, hence my limiting to science communicator and environmentalist. I was more replying to you about why external articles might have written about him in this way. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Fellow Wikipedians, inviting feedback and collaboration on today's edits of this article. JHay556 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The criteria for notability are pretty well established by consensus and we do not have a consensus policy of making exceptions based on whether someone's contributions are for a humanitarian purpose. To keep this article, we would need a showing that Mr. Shribman meets the criteria described in any of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMICS, or some other part of WP:N. I appreciate your attempt to improve the article, but it remains that the article relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization. I'd also note that an article in Wikipedia is not a reward for doing good work, it's documentation of what reliable sources have said about the subject. That is one reason we need significant coverage in third-party sources. Also, @User:JHay556, I hate to ask, but do you also have another account? It's unusual to see so much involvement in an AfD from so many accounts that have few edits to other areas of Wikipedia. FalconK (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by "relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization" though - only one reference (27) links to the subject's organisation's Facebook page, and that because it is a video of Caroline Lucas saying the quote. The other Facebook links are all to the organisations / people in question. As for reliable sources / broader coverage, I've cited the Times, News.com.au and NewsHub, which are among the most respectable news sources in the UK, Australia and New Zealand respectively. Other sources include the Metro of London, VICE Media, the Edmund Hilary Fellowship. As for the notability guidelines, if the words "entertainer" and "entertainment" were replaced with "environmentalist" / "science communicator" and "environmentalism" / "science communication" then I don't see why this article, like the others linked above, shouldn't stick, especially with the global context we are in. And yes, just this account - I don't usually do Wikipedia, though some colleagues have been working on other articles and giving me advice on how to do so, so I'm working on this. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep based on significant coverage such as BBC and The Times, it should stay. I also think anyone that gets invited to speak at TEdx is well vetted and must be an expert in his field to be invited to speak in such a well known conference. BTW, I removed some promotional language and it may need a little more work to make it less promotional sounding. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage" for biographies of living persons is a term of art here on Wikipedia. It means that two or more reliable sources have covered the subject personally. Reliable sources include the BBC and The Times, a paper of record. However, the subject of their reports must be more than mere mentions and interviews can not be used to cite specific details about the person's life and work details. Also, we prefer secondary sources, rather than primary sources such as those news outlets, regardless of how reliable they are. The sources must also be independent of the subject, so citations to the person's social media and blogs are not allowed. We also have specific rules about whether certain honors allow for automatic notability (for example, getting a Nobel Prize). Most of the time, being connected to a notable or prestigious institution does not automatically confer notability. Even being associated with an important issue is not mean the person is notable; thousands of people are involved in climate change right now. Giving a TEDX talk is not so prestigious an honor to confer automatic notability. Wikipedians are in the process of cleaning out a lot of non-notable subjects from our encyclopedia; currently we are working on articles created in 2010 and 2011 and we have found there's a lot of non-notable persons who have articles on here. Sorry, but in my opinion, based on past similar cases, this person is not notable yet. Finally, althouigh some offending words have been removed, the article remains in such poor a state, with cites to social media, as to require a total re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Bearian gives a very in-depth and cogent argument as to why this person does not currently meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Duncan Ronald Gordon Mackay

Duncan Ronald Gordon Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NSOLDIER. one decent article of coverage in a source of questionable reliability, I found no other sigcov that would establish GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, nothing notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Retain The article was previously recommended for deletion in July 2019 and overturned. The relevant discussion appears here>> User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_6 Mackay was the last Scot to be killed in World War 1. It seems that he was the last airman to be killed in combat. 18 members of the Royal Air Force died on 11th November, some in training and some not aircrew. Shipsview (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What RS says that he was the last Scot to die in WWI? Not that that is in any way notable. He didn't die in combat, he died of wounds, as did presumably dozens of others on Armistice Day. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not just the last Scot, but also the last British aviator to be killed. So, unique on both counts. Shipsview (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT, provide RS that he was the last British aviator to be killed. Even if you can its doubtful that that establishes notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence of an aviator being killed with the last hour after MacKay being shot down, so one must suppose that he was the last. I don't think that the Germans said 'Ach! This is the second last airman we will shoot down!' Here is further reading material: a) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1040606/last-scot-fall-first-world-war-armistice-day b) https://worldwar100.co.uk/portfolio/captain-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay/ c) https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/13022-capt-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay-raf/ Shipsview (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"One must suppose" isn't good enough for a weak notability claim. Express is of dubious reliability, worldwar100.co.uk's "Reputably the last Scot to be killed" isn't definitive and www.greatwarforum.org is not RS. Anyway as I said previously being the last Scot to die isn't sufficiently notable, otherwise we'd have to have pages for the last of every nationality to die in the war. Also he died of wounds after the Armistice, so do you have an RS that he was the last Scot and/or RAF airman to die of wounds? I really doubt it. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again: d) http://kenley-rafa.org.uk/RAFA%20Newsletter%20Nov-Jan%202019-woe-1.pdf e) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_Kingdom) (though not sourced).
So, last Scot, last pilot and the only Empire serviceman buried in the Joef Communal Cemetery, Meurthe-en-Moselle. How unique is that? And QED notable.
Let's now wait to see what support the two cases get. Shipsview (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RAFA Association not RS, particularly saying in one para he was killed in action and then in the next saying he died of his wounds, it can't be both. If it was true it would be covered in multiple RS, but its not. WP cannot be used as a source, particularly as you added McKay's entry yourself in July 2019: [10]. Being the only burial of a particular nationality doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Even without considering whether we can verify this, there seems to be some confusion between uniqueness and notability. Just being unique does not equal notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been shown. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for confusing you. I have already pointed out that the Wiki entry was unsourced! I was just attempting to show that there was another relevant entry.

Perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Captain Mackay with more focus on that? His life was barely notable, but his death, in my opinion, is. As you say, uniqueness does not necessarily equate to notable. His death on being shot down from the skies over German-held territory resulted in a combination of events that are unique both in themselves and collectively unique, and therefore notable. An example might be the soldier who is awarded a bar to his Waterloo medal is not notable, but if he earns four bars he becomes so. Shipsview (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, he wasn't notable in life and dying of wounds doesn't make him notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Try responding to what I wrote, please, to make your comment relevant. I did not list dying of wounds! Shipsview (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote and see nothing in his wounding, death or burial that is independently or cumulatively notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I am not sure if the one award he has won will satisfy WP:SOLDIER, but he does not have significant coverage. Given this is prior to the 1918 and not too much available online, we can't assume there will be other news, unless someone does the research and posts the info.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - searches are difficult due to the era in which he lived and died. There is some coverage, as on page 1389 of Flight International (Volume 10, Issue 2), but it seems to be more of simply listing those who have died. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The 34th Battalion (film)

The 34th Battalion (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreleased film that does not appear to have an imminent release and does not have a particularly notable production, should not have a standalone article per WP:NFF, good candidate for drafting BOVINEBOY2008 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that production even began, let alone being ready for release. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. A good example of a project that was developed but never got anywhere and does not warrant its own article. No objection to a sentence about the attempt at 34th Battalion (Australia) if it can fit somewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete We really need to push back against the claim that things that have not been released are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Found no coverage on google. Fails WP:NFILM. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. Subject to soft delete, this can be created again later. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

George Kalamuri

George Kalamuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Our article on the Military Medal suggests that over one hundred thousand have been awarded. There's no indication of any other coverage here that establishes notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant coverage to satisfy GNG - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails per WP:V. Other than the two sources cited, this person can not be found on Google news, newspapers, scholar, or books. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Edin Lynch

Edin Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following a discussion started in WT:FPL, the Scottish Championship was correctly deemed to no longer meet the requirements of being a fully professional league, as some clubs, including Alloa, were semi-pro.

This now means that Lynch's two appearances no longer give any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL and he needs to pass WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search but could only find passing mentions in match reports and the like.

He was on the books of Kilmarnock last season but, as per Soccerway and GSA, he didn't make it off the bench in the league and his only cup appearance was for the youth team. Spiderone 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - As it has been decided that Scottish Championship appearances do not automatically meet notability requirements, then this does fail on grounds of notability. The player is young enough that this may change in the future and he will meet notability guidelines, but for now the best thing is to delete the article. Dunarc (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not a fully professional team and as not notable at the moment. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pjero Andrijašević

Pjero Andrijašević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A futsal player with a very brief career in football. Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and appears to fall short on WP:GNG.

• [11] - a brief announcement of him signing for a futsal team
• [12] - another article about him signing for a futsal team with a brief comment from the player himself
• [13] - trivial mention
• [14] - trivial mention about him playing in a memorial match
• [15] - mentioned alongside a few other players, not significant coverage
• [16] - this is the source used in the article. The mention is very brief. Please note that notability is not inherited from his two famous relatives as per WP:NOTINHERITED Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete this is a total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stjepan Andrijašević with prejudice against recreation. (It has been recreated after prod deletion.) Geschichte (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Konstantine Konopisos

Konstantine Konopisos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Meets the letter of NSOLDIER as a rear admiral (though I couldn't verify that), but badly, badly, fails GNG -- to the point that I could barely verify he existed. He seems to have completely avoided getting significant coverage, and the fact that he may have been a rear admiral doesn't change that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete while his rank arguable satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just an essay and he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG, totally non-notable life. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - regardless of WP:ONLYESSAY it is consensus that flag rank officers are notable for being flag rank officers. That said, the Register of Retired Commissioned and Warrant Officers from 1978 lists Konopisos as having retired as a Captain in April 1975, and the 1984 edition has the same information. Why his tombstone (pictured on the findagrave 'reference') states RADM is confusing (perhaps it was one of those "advance one grade on death" deals?) but he can only be verified as having been a captain and, thus, defaults to GNG; a GBooks search turns up a number of WP:FRINGEy UFO titles but the ones that are searchable don't even mention him, and the only Google hits are mirrors of either Wikipedia or Findagrave, thus comprehensively failing it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, just being a flag officer does not establish notability. WP:SOLDIER is an Essay that lists categories presumed to have SIGCOV in multiple RS, but SIGCOV in multiple RS does not exist here. Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete was not of flag officer rank. There is a general consensus suggesting that those who hold that rank are notable, but some cases probably would not pass stringent GNG analysis. Also some countries have very high number of flag officers per military size, so it does not seem to mean the same thing in all countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Without a source to show he was actually a Rear Admiral, its as good as nothing, anyone can claim to be anything. Fails WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. We can verify he was a rear admiral when he died, but not when he was in active duty service. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2017–18 CA Oradea season

2017–18 CA Oradea season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NSEASONS only provides presumptions of notability for season articles on teams playing in top professional leagues. Liga V is a regional amateur set of leagues organised by the individual county associations, it is the exact opposite of a top professional league.

While CA Oradea's reformation did get some news coverage, this is already summarised much better in the main Club Atletic Oradea article so this is essentially an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. The fact that Facebook needed to be used to obtain most of the match reports shows that this level of amateur football does not receive enough significant, reliable and independent coverage to warrant this type of content fork. There is no evidence that this particular season, on its own, passes WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sneź Veljanovska

Sneź Veljanovska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD was added by User:Geschichte but was contested. An unsourced BLP on a player that does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. The best sources I could find were this promo interview, this news story on an injury and this transfer announcement. Spiderone 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the nominator did not include it, here is the deprod rationale: "According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport." In the future, I'd suggest including this pertinent information when converting a PROD into an AfD. pburka (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Since you mentioned it, the deprod argument is a total fallacy, since there are loads and loads of women who are notable in this sport, but Veljanovska does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Per norm. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Manfred von Richthofen. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Snowy Evans

Snowy Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod contested. Rationale was: Seemingly "The definition of a bio only notable for one event. I don't see any sigcov establishing GNG." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Manfred von Richthofen as he fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG is only known for that WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mztourist as an appropriate alternative to deletion. I note there are more sources in the Evans article than the von Richthofen article on Evans (specifically about his alleged killing of von Richthofen) so some of them may be able to be merged across. Deus et lex (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and the WP:1E concern is mooted by the statement there: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I'm pretty sure 'the death of the Red Baron' counts enough as a highly significant event to pass that, and his role in it is, ah, somewhat defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger I’d be curious to see the coverage here that you think clearly establishes GNG. Additionally, while its great that you think the event is highly significant, the rest of us are left out here wondering why— sure it’s significant, but highly? I’d contest that assertion. Even if it is considered significant, we still' need sigcov in independent reliable sources that establish their role as significant, not just what you are pretty sure about counting. I’m not seeing any indication there’s more worth saying about Evans from an encyclopedic standpoint then the paragraph already included in Richthofen‘s article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Pastorino

Claudia Pastorino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only reference is her own website. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can find accurate, reliable, notable reporting, which I can't upon a quick google.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete it is a true outrage that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived for over 15 years. We are still paying for the original sin of Wikipedia, valuing quantity far, far more than quality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsoucured BLP. Just to be sure, I looked online, and found zero newspaper articles, a few passing mentions in Italian magazines of her work with animals, and unrelated sources about a similarly named scientist. I found a few passing mentions in (possibly unreliable scandal-type) Italian media, but also a review of a single starring turn. That's not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosalind Hicks

Rosalind Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not inherited, no notability outside of her relationship with her mother. No in-depth coverage on her. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Famous parents do not preclude notability. In fact, the attached celebrity makes it more likely. Her long, unpaid obituaries in The Scotsman, The Telegraph and The Guardian are clear evidence of her own notability. pburka (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• KeepI have to agree that unpaid obituaries in newspapers with significant circulation is a strong sign of notability. Of course, she's not even close to being as notable as her mother (few people are!) but she did have a major impact on the perception of her mother and the adaptations of her work. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per the obituaries, which are pretty well the best sources in newspapers, as they cover the whole of a subject's life rather than one particular news event. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I would agree with the view that the number and scope of obituaries is a clear sign of notability. Also her influence on later adaptations of her mothers work is arguably a further sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - editors and literary executors can be notable in their own right, which is shown by significant coverage upon her own death. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Reason Studios and Merge. Content may be retrieved for a merger from the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Reason (software)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Reason (software)
• Articles for deletion/Reason (software) (2nd nomination)

Reason (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No independent sources other than reviews all from the same source and I'm not seeing anything else, though the name makes it hard to search for. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Can't find any notable sources on it either from the quick search I did ('reason music software') and its not like the content in the page itself is substantial. SacredSunflower (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Merge it into Reason Studios, of which the software is its principal project. Foonblace (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Has reviews in PCMag, American Songwriter, and Sound on Sound, and passing mentions in NYtimes [17] and WSJ [18][19]. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Draftify Definitely notable,but it’s too short and doesn’t give info about history etc.--YerelDahi (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• (nom) After seeing the sources, I think this is borderline notable. merge to Reason Studios is what I now think is the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge: although this software is up to version 11 and has some interesting references (PCMag, American Songwriter) the article itself is a little too bald and has insufficient information. Hence, Merge to Reason Studios, as above. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Taha Mourid

Taha Mourid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Assertion of notability from 2 alleged appearances for Wydad but this is not supported by the article's sole reference. Also does not pass WP:GNG as the only mentions are fairly brief ones in match reports and mentions of being called up to the Morocco under 20 squad.

Soccerway has nothing down for him. Nor does Football Database. Sofascore records four times when he has been an unused substitute. World Football has u17 games only. GSA confirms that he has only played u17 for Morocco and has not yet got off the bench for his club. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, find some sources which have been used to establish notability for other footballers and being called up to the Morocco under 20 squad should count for GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not even come close to meeting our ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

SDSS J1408+0257

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/SDSS J140821.67+025733.2

• Articles for deletion/SDSS J1408+0257 (2nd nomination)

SDSS J1408+0257 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A similar article was deleted under a slightly different name in June 2018 (SDSS J140821.67+025733.2, which is now a re-direct to this article). Since then, nothing has changed: the object has a single line mention in the catalog paper, and as discussed in the original AfD, this is almost certainly a spurious measurement and a non-notable object. Being included in a catalog does not make something notable. It also should not be on the list of "most massive black holes".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: based on a Vizier lookup for reference #4, setting MBHCIV > 11.0, this object does have the highest value. Does that make it notable? There's no dedicated scientific study of this quasar; it's just one of 280,000 studied by the SDSS. Praemonitus (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge The object does mot appear to be notable, other than the fact that it may have the most massive black hole ever, but i do not think it should exactly be deleted. Kepler-1229b talk

Merge to what though? I've removed it from the list of most massive black holes, because it is very likely an unreliable measurement. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge to List of quasars. Kepler-1229b talk

• Delete If the object had the most massive supermassive black hole known, I think that alone would easily establish notability. But this object's mass estimate is just one in a huge number of objects processed. It could be just a noisy measurement. The paper containing the mass estimate itself casts doubt on this object's mass value in the paragraph above section 4 (Summary). If it is a really solid candidate for the most massive, there's a good chance someone will do a followup study to prove that, investigate the object in detail, and publish a paper about it.PopePompus (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This article might help to clarify the situation. Aldebarium (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Nice work. Now we just need someone to publish a paper on galaxy "sizes" (however defined) so we can lay that one to rest, too. ;-) - Parejkoj (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Good work spotting that article, Aldebarium. It looks like a strong case for delete now.PopePompus (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I am one of the authors, and the paper was written to try to settle this issue once and for all so we can avoid having this discussion again. To avoid COI questions I won't vote on this deletion poll. But the bottom line is that the huge mass estimate was just based on a mistaken measurement from a big catalog. Aldebarium (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I put in a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing to your paper. Even though I suspect this article will be deleted, I think it's best not to have erroneous info on Wikipedia even for a short time.PopePompus (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I think there is just about concensus to delete here, certainly the extra week didn't bring any other significant sources to light. Fenix down (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Florentino

Claudia Florentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was sent to draft for good reason but has been moved back to main space without going through AfC.

Contested PROD with reason 50 starts for a team indicates some sort of notability

Initial reason for PROD was Not notable enough for an article; when searching Spanish news sources, there is only brief coverage of her signing for Real Madrid. No WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. No evidence that Florentino passes WP:NFOOTBALL either as she has no caps.

I have done a WP:BEFORE search and checked the Spanish and German Wikipedia and still found no strong coverage. Spiderone 18:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes the WP:GNG per [20] [21] [22] [23] and there is more. gidonb (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The only decent source is the first one, in my view. The rest is just routine transfer rumours or transfer announcements Spiderone 09:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The rest also includes WP:SIGCOV. As I said there is more but this is sufficient for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Which parts, sorry? I can see that they confirm the agreed price was 20 000 euros to Albacete. Another source confirms that she is a centre back and says that she is fast. I wouldn't be opposed to this being sent back to draft again and going through AfC. It shouldn't really have been moved back, in my opinion and I'll be surprised if it would pass even with these sources added. Spiderone 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spiderone, please note that all four articles were signed by journalists. Routine articles are often assigned to press agencies. Here actual people went into such detail as analyzing the actual playing style of Claudia Florentino! An article should be kept once we know that WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV exist. I did not dig into the other players that you nominated, but it is my experience that female players in prime leagues often meet the WP:GNG. Probably it is time to review our notability rules for top-level female footballers. Until then we should assess closely if they pass the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would still probably lean more towards restoring this in the draft space rather than main space but we may have to agree to disagree. In any case, the Spanish league is joining WP:FPL as of next season so players such as Florentino will soon achieve the presumed notability at NFOOTBALL provided she stays in this league. Spiderone 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence or some coverage, but this is really just one substantial article, the other sources provided are very short routine transfer reporting of what looks like the same event. Given low level of participation to date no harm in extending for another week to generate wider consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 57 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2016–17 FC Barcelona B season

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2016–17 FC Barcelona B season
• Articles for deletion/2016–17 FC Barcelona B season (2nd nomination)

2016–17 FC Barcelona B season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Please note that this was previously deleted but that discussion took place before the season started so was deleted on WP:TOOSOON grounds. A few years later and I still can't see any evidence of notability here. Third tier seasons in Spain are not inherently notable and this doesn't look to pass WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. Spiderone 18:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nixon Guylherme

Nixon Guylherme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD BlameRuiner (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - beat me to it! Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The nominator has done well to make this article out of the limited sources available but, sadly, it's not enough to pass GNG in my humble opinion. Spiderone 18:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 57 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete totally fails GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 02:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Lodro Rinzler

Lodro Rinzler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have no opinion on nomination. This was requested by Rinzler via email (VRTS ticket # 2020120710012173) under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not notable as a writer nor as a religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails GNG and most sources appear to be the subject's own profiles as a writer.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Am Internet search shows he graduated from college in 2005, but that's it. I'm in favor of going along with deleting marginally notable living persons who request the deletion of their articles. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeevitham (1984 film)

Jeevitham (1984 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Varum Varunnu Vannu

Varum Varunnu Vannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Essentially unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - can't find any evidence of notability; even the Sify review is just a rating with no prose Spiderone 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

De Ingottu Nokkiye

De Ingottu Nokkiye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The REDIFF review would not pass per WP:NFILM as it fails "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep as the rediff review is significant coverage in a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Per Atlantic306 Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I could find a Sify review as well - https://www.sify.com/movies/de-ingottu-nokiye-review-malayalam-pclw98hjbcjae.html. It is hard to find reviews and the like for Malayalam movies older than 10 years, and its better to go by the quality of the lead actors to examine whether notability is met. Jupitus Smart 13:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could this be added to the article? Geschichte (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per two RS reviews, meets NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bharya Swantham Suhruthu

Bharya Swantham Suhruthu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Two references are dead, the rest fail to demonstrate notability. Kolma8 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - does have reviews in sify.com, India Glitz etc. but no nationally-known critics Spiderone 15:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nationally known means in well known national publications but while Sify is a reliable source, India Glitz is not, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the sourcing available fails to establish notability for this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

John Dolic

John Dolic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not enough reliable source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I found 1 reference to Dolic via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspaper articles, which while small and short would satisfy 'substantial' and 'independent', and so I've added it to the article. However, that alone is not sufficient to fulfill GNG. Insufficient notable coverage so fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I found more reliable source coverage to justify the article, and I've added it to the article.Sthdifferent (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Local puff pieces are not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The point is that even the “local puff pieces” are independent sources which was the original argument. Actually I first heard of Dolic when he completed his studies in China back in 1987 and was celebrated in former Yugoslavia’s mainstream media as the first Yugoslavian and the first European to gain a degree in Chinese medicine from Beijing. I clearly remember all major TV stations (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian…) and leading papers of the time like Politika, Večernji list, Oslobođenje, Arena, Una, Top and many others ran stories and interviews on him. That is how I heard of him and the reason why I decided to write an article about him in Wikipedia. If he was not notable I would never do it in the first place. What happened since then is that the war broke up in the former Yugoslavia and Dolic left the country. I tried to source the article and contacted many of those publications but was unsuccessful since that was pre-digital era (and pre-war) and archiving was far from efficient. I would be more than happy if someone could instruct me on how to get the access to those sources. That is why relied on what I could find on him in Australia where Dolic has been residing since.Sthdifferent (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep At the time the AfD was created I would agree that it would not meet GNG and WP:RS, however, 4 new qualifying references were added by user @Sthdifferent: that seem to meet WP:RS they are to The Daily Telegraph / Mosman Daily. If more are added I would change my vote to keep. A quick google news search I wasn't able to find much more. CosmicNotes (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Added some more references. Sthdifferent (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: More references have been added by user @Sthdifferent: the PHD thesis cites Dolic 29 times (most are interviews). He clearly has notability in his own field of practice. Television interviews, radio interviews are usually not kept for posterity, at least, back in the days before social media. Keep, Dolic has proven stability and steadiness in his own field. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - first, none of the additional sources are the type of in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, and I'm sorry but being mentioned in a doctoral thesis of a non-notable person just is not that impressive, and counts zero towards notability. In addition, almost the entire article is unsourced; sections 1, 2, and 3, as well as most of section 4 have zero sourcing. Searches turned up zero in the way of in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think most delete-proponents are missing a crucial point here, and that is they are overly stressing, to them, the lack of coverage of Dolic’s achievements (please see the above-mentioned major reasons for it). They are completely ignoring the facts that he is still, undisputedly, the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine, was the editor and publisher of Australia’s, to-date, the only Chinese medicine/Qigong magazine, the author of a book on Qigong translated into several languages, former lecturer and member of the executive committee of several associations, colleges and universities of Chinese medicine and so on. It amazes me that, to so many Wikipedians, it is all about the amount of references and those who have plenty are assured the articles, even if they were just clowns and all they ever did was had ten million hits on YouTube or shocked the world with their stupidities! As for the claims that sections 1, 2 and 3 lack sourcing, that is because there are 6 sources right at the beginning so there was no need to cite them again in these sections. Sthdifferent (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage is of insufficient depth and/or reliability to meet WP:GNG. The first x to do y is not automatically notable, only when it's covered in depth by reliable sources. Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, per Sandstein. The depth of coverage available here is insufficient to show notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Things like "the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine" do not confer notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Zydus Wellness

Zydus Wellness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure WP:PROMO, Qualifies WP:ADMASK. Again a highly sub-standard article created by M4DU7 without imparting any encyclopedic value of the article. (Similar page has been marked for AfD, by me) Hence, calling for an AfD. Kindly note; all such kind of sub-standard articles are reviewed by a "New Page Patroller"... on what basis? God Knows. - Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep A large WP:LISTED FMCG company. Nothing about the article is promotional in nature. Other editors are more than welcome to improve this "substandard" article. The nominator has marked it as a paid article... On what basis? God knows. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  NOTE: This vote is added by the creator of the article. - Hatchens (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: May be a listed company but the current content is extremely limited in scope and does not warrant an entire article at this point of time. The content can be moved to a section in the parent company's article. Prolix 💬 13:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have expanded the article a bit with more references. Just to add to my earlier vote, this is a ~US$2 billion market cap company which owns household brands like Complan, Sugar Free, Glucon D, EverYuth and Nycil, some of which are market leaders in India. The references prove that it passes NCORP, CORPDEPTH and GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I appreciate the cleanup and additional references. I also don't read the promotional tone referenced above.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP: meets the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotion of a trading company, there is no independent commentary on the company, but a lot of non-independent glowing comments. Fails WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

  There is a 32-page analyst report about Zydus Wellness published 24 September 2020 by ICICI Securities here^{Internet Archive} and written by the research analysts Manoj Menon, Vismaya Agarwal, and Karan Bhuwania.

  According to this link^{Internet Archive}, Zydus Wellness has received analyst coverage in UBS. According to this link^{archive.today}, Zydus Wellness has received analyst coverage in Edelweiss Group, Sharekhan, ICICI Securities, AUM Capital, Axis Direct, Ajcon Global, Nirmal Bang, and Ashika Research.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zydus Wellness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into Cadila Healthcare. The present article is a mix of prospectus and advertisement (I've added a cleanup tag in case we don't manage to delete it). Although the company is WP:LISTED, I'm concerned there's nothing at all to say about it beyond coverage of financial transactions and glowing reviews or at least lists of its products. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere but it really doesn't seem to warrant an article separate from its parent company. This is true even though stock in the company might be traded independently of its parent. Wikipedia is not a stock market analyst desk. FalconK (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The article passes both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Yes, it needs editing to remove the promotional tone, but the article that can be fixed through editing, is not a candidate for AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It is also edited to remove promotional tone. Beagel (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as per Cunard who is correct that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also agree that this article needs some cleanup. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep looks like enough coverage to me. Doesn't seem like a merge per FalconK would be appropriate because evidentally they're not fully owned by their parent company and it has an independent history. ~EdGl talk 22:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá

ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:RELPEOPLE, however, it could be merged with Hands_of_the_Cause. Serv181920 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - all the Hands of the Cause should easily pass notability, and adding them as a section on Hands of the Cause is awkward. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep He is notable enough that Encyclopedia Iranica has an article about him, English Wikipedia should too: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/varqa-ali-mohammad. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Check the last comment of this section by Cuñado, one of the main Baha'i editor on wikipedia.Serv181920 (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that comment is relevant. Iranica is not a Wikipedia mirror. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That comment is totally irrelevant; Iranica is a one of the most credible sources about on any topic related to Iran. Additionally Ali-Muhammad Varqa is not only mentioned there several times but it has a standalone article of its own. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any wiki policy that states if Encyclopedia Iranica has an article then wikipedia should also have!Serv181920 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep. This article wants improvement, but being the last surviving Hand of the Cause, in addition to his other responsibilities, satisfies notability in my view. Granted, the overwhelming number of sources on him tend to be from Baha'i sources. That shouldn't be a great issue. RexSueciae (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

He could be a notable person, but for Baha'is only. There can be a good article on him at Bahaipedia. I believe he fails WP:BASICServ181920 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per Cunado. Again, Hands of the Cause should easily pass notability.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I think this can close as keep. Also another AFD just ran for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al-Hosayn Ayati whose notability was also upheld with an Iranica article by most commentors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How is that case related to this case? And there the "notability" is not upheld due to Iranica alone! Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither is it here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep WP:RELPEOPLE only refers to Christian leadership; it is exclusive of other faiths. So this reason for deletion is null and void. Wikiproject Baha'i Article Sources says that due weight should be given to using Encyclopædia Iranica as a source. It is regarded as a tertiary source. Blase references have been given to Hands of the Cause without sufficiently explaining it. This particular reference should suffice as notability for this article. Use of a notability guideline that does not explicitly address this world faith is misleading. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster)

Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability. The indepth sources (epsom college and hereford anglican) are not independent (institutions he worked for), the FRSA is an award given to some 30,000 people at the moment (so not something which in itself is cause for newspaper reports or other indepth reporting), and looking for other sources only revealed further passing mentions or sources which lack independence. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Run of the mill schoolmaster. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

*Merge probably with Epsom College, if not delete. A small health warning, the a membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference goes with the job in most private schools, and all these schools are private schools. Epsom College Malaysia needs an article. The link to Lambeth Academy leads through the United Church Schools Trust maze. Condolences to his wife after his recent sudden death last week. ClemRutter (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The subject complies with WP:N, as all the information in it can be referenced from reliable sources. Borthwick died a few days ago, and the national press has not yet printed the obituaries which will provide even more substantial coverage. It may be helpful to put this AfD on hold until then. ClemRutter, I do not see your point about links. As it happens, Lambeth Academy has an article, not a very good one. You say Epsom College Malaysia needs an article, but that supposes it is notable, and I believe there is no longer a presumption that all secondary schools are. But where does any of that go? Membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference does not "go with the job in most private schools", but that also has nothing to do with notability. Oaktree b, "WP:Run-of-the-mill" is an essay, not policy, and the GNG has nothing to do with importance, it is simply about whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Moonraker I was just flagging up that I was not prepared to defend this one all the way through AfD myself . On your comments I have struck through my vote. Membership of HMC goes to the school, and is given in the name of the current headmaster, though I suppose it could be withheld. Details like that can be pounced upon and used to discredit the AfD defence. I am currently spending a lot time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesmahagow High School where the silliest things are being disputed. (If you have time please join in). Lambeth Academy is one of many London Academies that needs a lot of TLC- and it will be possible to work it up, I'll put it on my watchlist and join in when I can be useful. Epsom College Malaysia will have the WP:N but finding the secondary sources will be a challenge. I would start by who gives them accreditation and take it from there. Greetings and good wishes from Kent. ClemRutter (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Fram, surely the point about employers, close associates, and so on, is that they nearly always give a sanitized version of events. But if they are respectable, they do not need to be ruled out completely, they can still be relied on for factual points of detail, but not for opinion or for giving a balanced overview. That’s how I see it, and it’s a common approach. Moonraker (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not what I meant though. For AfD, we are talking notability, and for this we need independent sources. That an employer/organisation posts an obit of a (former) employee is perfectly normal and doesn't give any notability to the person involved (which doesn't mean that these obits can't be used once notability has been established of course). See WP:BASIC, the starting point of our biographies notability guideline, and especially the end of the sentence; "and independent of the subject.". The footnote which follows this explicitly states " nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members." Now, if independent sources (say, newspapers) would print an obituary of the person (a journalistic one, not one by the family or so), then indeed that would point towards notability. But your claim that "the national press has not yet printed the obituaries" is WP:CRYSTAL, we have no way of knowing if these will actually appear, and which each passing day this gets less likely. Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fram, I don’t dispute that, but the vast majority of the present sources are independent of the subject, and the ones you might question are only relied on for simple facts. As it happens, I should say the broadsheets are getting slow about producing obituaries, unless someone is a household name, when they probably have a draft ready. Moonraker (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Which substantial sources are independent? Most sources are passing mentions, inclusions in lists of people, interviews about different subjects (not interviews about themselves)... Can you list the 3 or so sources which you believe indicate notability for him (i.e. independent, reliable sources with substantial, non-routine coverage of him?). Fram (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fram let’s use the GNG definition of “Significant coverage", viz. it “addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

You and I disagree on the Diocese of Hereford page, but to me it is clearly independent of the subject. I am not sure whether the Epsom College page is, but they are both relied on only to verify facts. Articles from The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London have more than trivial mentions, and there is an interview in Surrey Life. The Good Schools Guide and British and International Music Yearbook “address the topic directly”, and People of Today has a short biography. No doubt you would challenge all of those, but there we are. I don’t think there is any point in going further with this, other people will have their own ideas on notability, and I am busy in real life. Moonraker (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't access all of them, but a birthday entry in the Times is not really significant coverage, the article in the Independent[24] is not coverage of Borthwick, just like this article in The Times[25] is not coverage of him: interviews are considered primary sources, not secndary sources, and the interviews are not about him but his comments about a topic. Fram (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fram, see the GNG: “...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”. You are right about the birthday column of The Times, but it’s only leading educators who get included there. Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Although sources are reliable notability is not attained under WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, Thanks for agreeing the sources are reliable. I agree that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) does not apply, he was clearly not a professor or an academic. That policy is about exceptions to the WP:GNG for people who get there by another route. The GNG is all that’s relevant here. Do you have a view on whether the sources fail to comply with that, in particular the short biographies in People of Today and hereford.anglican.org, the Good Schools Guide, British and International Music Yearbook, an interview in Surrey Life, articles in The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London? Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources are reliable but not independent enough or significant enough to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

There is nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

• Delete - an accomplished education administrator, but does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, could you please say how you arrive at that view? Please see the sources listed just above. Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 I find these ex cathedra pronouncements distinctly un-wikipedian and unhelpful, as WP:GNG is so woolly anytime it is used it needs a reason. What are you trying to say? GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ClemRutter (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• ClemRutter, then by saying, doesn't meet GNG, what I am saying is that the topic has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Seems pretty clear to me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Onel5969, I think what ClemRutter means is that there are a lot of references, so it would be helpful if you could say which in your view are not reliable sources, or not independent of the subject, or do not give any significant coverage. The WP:GNG defines all its terms, including “significant coverage”. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Moonraker, that's fair, there's not a single in-depth reference from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up anything either. The articles are brief mentions (or interviews, which as primary sources, do not go to notability). Or, like his death announcement from the school, which is in-depth, is not independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

onel5969, the GNG does not require significant coverage to be “in depth”. More than a “trivial mention”, yes, and I do not see anything which is only that. Trivial must mean trivial. Note: WP:Basic criteria says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And I still see reliable sources with substantial coverage, if it mattered. I think you have an argument about the school page, that’s one source we can ignore for notability. I did put a page from another school obituary in as an external link, and it might belong there, but even primary sources can be used to verify simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning keep for now. Headmasters do not generally get elected fellows of the Royal Society of Arts, nor do they have their birthdays listed by The Times, nor do they get their views solicited by major national newspapers (The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, ie all the major broadsheet stables apart from The Guardian/Observer). This is anything but run of the mill in the UK. Could revisit in 6–12 months, by which time there might well be obituaries to judge from newspapers and specialist education press -- all the major papers here are overwhelmed with the recent volume of deaths and are not noting people's passing in the usual way. The funeral is scheduled for mid January and might generate at least local press coverage[26], although considering the coronavirus restrictions may mean no-one can attend, perhaps not. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Even though "Withdrawn by nominator", since there was a valid delete vote, had to be done through a regular closing process, and the consensus is clearly keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Volkmar Weiss

Volkmar Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This figure does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF. The article describes him as a scientist but he does not appear to have ever held an academic position (his personal website [27] describes him as a "psychohistorian" and his German-language Wiki [28] states that he worked as an administrator for the German Central Office for Genealogy from the time of his habilitation until his retirement in 2008). His publication record appears to fall far short of notability as well. Further, I have not found any English-language WP:RS secondary sources discussing him. His website lists a 2002 book review in Personality and Individual Differences but I cannot locate the review in that journal's archive (or anywhere through numerous Google searches). Even if it does exist, one such review would not establish notability. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. I won't stand in the way of what appears to be an emerging consensus for keeping this article. That doesn't mean I'm persuaded by all of the arguments below (I still think the subject clearly fails WP:PROF, and I've found only one instance of targeted commentary in a scientific journal –– the Gisela Grupe article in Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie). However it seems that others are prepared to see the coverage in German-language newspapers as evidence for general notability and I'll be happy to defer to that. Thanks to everyone who's participated in this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: The German-language Wiki states that he was Mitherausgeber (literally "co-editor", though apparently this can simply mean that he was a member of an editorial panel) of Mankind Quarterly until 2015. It may be worth emphasizing that criterion 8 of WP:PROF is only satisfied when the subject has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area, which Mankind Quarterly is clearly not. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thanks very much for your detailed response to NightHeron's query below. I suppose Weiss's notability hinges on whether Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag and Die Tageszeitung are considered WP:RS in this context. I know they're both considered politically partisan (as you point out) so it's not clear to me that they count to establish WP:GNG. I suppose it's a judgment call, unless you're aware of any precedents or policy guidelines that would help us adjudicate? And once again: thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also: looking more into Telepolis leads me to believe that it is a highly unreliable source. A quick search shows that they've published 9/11 "truther" claims by conspiracy theorist Mathias Bröckers and fringe ideas about physics by Burkhard Heim. Generalrelative (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Randykitty: It's not clear to me that Die Tageszeitung (reference 2) is WP:RS, as mentioned in my reply to Kusma above. I did check all the references in Weiss's German-language article and found that of those 27, several of the clearly WP:RS ones do not actually refer to Weiss at all (references 8, 10, 11, 17). I'm not sure whether and to what extent policies like WP:SYNTH apply on the German-language Wikipdia, but this article seems to be quite full of it. Only references 18 and 25 appear to be clear cases of reliable, independent coverage of Weiss, and the latter appears to make only fleeting reference to him (it is a "brochure" or "pamphlet" –– Broschüre –– on a much wider topic). Seems to me that this subject still fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROF. Generalrelative (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as OP. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete The BLP gives no significant evidence of notability. The closest is the statement that VW's arguments were used in a chapter of a book (Germany Abolishes Itself) that was very popular among German rightists. He seems to be mainly a minor promoter of fringe views, and the article lists the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly as his "Co-publisher" (perhaps a mistranslation from German). NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, notable case of right-wing fringe science promoter and previous head of the de:Deutsche Zentralstelle für Genealogie. Co-founder of Die Wende era party German Social Union. Reasonable amount of WP:GNG sources in the German Wikipedia article. —Kusma (t·c) 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This article was apparently brought over from the German Wikipedia but without RS establishing notability. Could you be more specific on which sources in German establish notability? Note that the article German Social Union doesn't mention him. NightHeron (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll try. Article about his book in Welt am Sonntag and another one in Telepolis. From my own searches: Mentioned here in right wing Die Welt, discussed here in left-wing newspaper die tageszeitung. Weiss doesn't like Wikipedia very much: [29]. He has not only published questionable ideas about the genetics of intelligence, but also crank pseudoscience [30] in Mohamed El Naschie's journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. I can't find particularly good sources about the German Social Union (DSU) connection at the moment (can verify that Weiss was involved, but many articles/books that study the early DSU history typically use texts written by Volkmar Weiss as their main source). There's a lot to find from him via Google Scholar or Google Books, and his theses were discussed in a wide spectrum of German newspapers (not too hard to find), applauded by the hard right, condemned by the left. Notable enough, but I don't want to write about him. —Kusma (t·c) 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - badly fails WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: fails NPROF The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• Keep. Notable pseudoscientist. I went to the article on the German WP and already reference 2 is an independent reliable source. I didn't bother looking further, but there are 27 references in that article and while several are to publications by Weiss himself, several others appear to be independent RSs. Our article could be improved by using some of the stuff that our German colleagues have used. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: don't be silly. Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag and Die Tageszeitung absolutely are RS. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Since this article was started over a decade ago, there've been about 100 edits, and it still does not establish notability. The two editors who want to keep it have argued that, if additional material were brought over from the German article, that could establish notability. A hypothetical statement like that is hard to evaluate, especially by those of us who don't know German. If someone who wants this article kept could put in the edits they're referring to, then we could evaluate whether or not they establish notability. Of course, Wikipedia policy explicitly allows editing of the article during the deletion discussion.

Also, for a productive discussion it would be helpful to avoid casting aspersions on other editors ("don't be silly"). NightHeron (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. Nobody is casting aspersions on other editors, but doubting that Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag is somehow not a gold-plated RS is plain silly. --Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I thank NightHeron for their comment. For the record, I'm okay with being called silly, though of course it doesn't add anything to the discussion. The issue is with the sources. The only specific guidance I've been able to find on Die Welt and Die Tageszeitung is the New page patrol source guide, which lists both of them as having been subjected to "insufficient discussion". Those designations link to this RfC, where Stephan Schulz states that Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press, but yes, for factual reporting it's generally reliable. To back this up they cite this peer-reviewed article [31] and summarize it as follows: it lists Die Welt as the lowest of the second rank papers, below Frankfurter Rundschau and above Die Tageszeitung. TAZ is alone on the third rank, and the 4th rank papers include Bild and Neues Deutschland, which I don't think anyone would include as "quality press". Not exactly "gold-plated RS" (and Die Tageszeitung / TAZ is further cast into doubt), but if these sources are considered reliable enough for the community here then I suppose that's that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)'

• Since may name came up: I'm not a fan of Die Welt, and Die Tageszeitung has a very strong and clear political positioning. But they both are part of the quality press. Not NYT quality, but easily on par with e.g. The Times under Murdoch, and unquestionably better than e.g. the New York Post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your insight. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per significant coverage in RSes as shown by Kusma, although I'm doubtful that his work at Deutsche Zentralstelle für Genealogie is a strong argument for notability in the absence of related sigcov in RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Enough academic and publishing qualifications for WP:PROF; the German Wikipedia article is strong; being a right-wing extremist scientist makes him notable in the notorious sense, but this is sufficient, he is noticed and commented upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep A disagreeable puffball and quack, but a notable one. In addition to the NP coverage discussed above, there's also material in Der Freitag and targeted commentary in scientific journals. All that stuff would have to be lifted over from the German version, but since this is the rare deWP article that actually has plenty of inline cites (woah...), it's perfectly doable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn. ~EdGl talk 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy

Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article seems to be a WP:HOAX. Concerns about the authenticity of the trophy have been raised with the Cricket Project and the article's creator. The creator has not responded to their talkpage or provided any WP:RS to back-up the article. A tag for speedy deletion was removed by the article's creator without any rationale. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a hoax. Speedy delete tag was deleted by article creator, who has refused to engage with us, and there are no sources that this trophy exists/is going to exist in the future. The "trophy image" is just a random photo of a blank trophy, and so it seems they're deliberately trying to created a plausible looking hoax article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No evidence of existence. Only conclusion can be that this is a hoax. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - the page creator has no right to remove the speedy deletion tag. This is a blatant hoax and I don't think we should wait 7 days for deletion. Spiderone 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The author has blanked the page. It is indeed a hoax article. I have restored the CSD template that author had removed without reason. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Tina Rexing

Tina Rexing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I find it lacks notability. Is the BLP of a baker entrepreneur that has a coffee shop Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I did note on the talk page, pretty much immediately after writing this article, that it might be better to rewrite parts of it and rename it T-Rex Cookie. It was my impression from the sources I found that either Rexing or T-Rex would be notable, and I decided to write the article primarily from a biographical standpoint initially, but would be perfectly happy if the decision was the article doesn't meet the requirements for BLP. Anyway, I have no strong feelings either way on this AfD, but wanted to raise that alternative again. --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarkTraceur: yeah, I think it is better to move it to T-Rex Cookie. The way the article is now, seems a little bit promotional to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Rename and keep per the discussion above. Interesting info worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. An article on the company could be written from the sources in this article, but this article is truly just a resume. The company is notable, but founders don't inherit notability from their companies. FalconK (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close as "keep and rename" but I think we need a bit more consensus for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Comment on second read, I'm not actually so sure the company is notable. Coverage of it appears to be exclusively local. I'm still in camp delete. FalconK (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per FalconK's reasoning.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Transitory, and the coverage is almost exclusively local. Kablammo (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and should be renamed per MarkTraceur above. Just a quick glance at the article and a Google search I see enough local coverage as well as NPR, an appearance on Today, and at least one mention on Today's website. ~EdGl talk 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The linked sources are respectively an interview and a recipe (which happens to mention her in passing). FalconK (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The person is not notable. WP:TNT should be followed and a new article made for the cookie itself, parts and sources could be copied over. ~RAM (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sublime (Marvel Comics)

Sublime (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Coverage is widely just passing mentions, definitely not enough to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to the character list as an ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as a compromise. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NOTPLOT because significant coverage does not exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as per what I see is consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fahd Hassan

Fahd Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the person is very well known in Egypt and the Arab world and he is a rapper and an actor, and I have put all possible sources and references, all of which are verified sources from international sites. محمد أمين الطرابلسي (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - after looking at the sources carefully, I've noticed that a lot of them are rehashings of each other, for example [32] and [33] are identical in everything but their URL. Please also note that posting links to Amazon, YouTube and Instagram has no benefit on notability. If you remove all the unreliable sources, there isn't really anything left. Spiderone 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Overexposed (album) (and one to Hands All Over (album)). Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wipe Your Eyes

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wipe Your Eyes
• Articles for deletion/Wipe Your Eyes (2nd nomination)

Wipe Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sad (Maroon 5 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The Man Who Never Lied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Lucky Strike (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Hands All Over (Maroon 5 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The articles fails WP:NSONGS. Of the dozen or more sources used, most are derived from album reviews. Per the guideline, songs with content derived within the context of an album should not have an article. Please note that chart positions do not support notability. Even though "Lucky Strike" is a song that was certified gold in the U.S., third-party coverage--which is the one and only determining criteria for notability--is insufficient. HĐ (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect the Overexposed songs to the album article as I could not find evidence of signficant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I believe the "Hands All Over" song should also be redirected to the album article. I was initially hesitant about the last one since it received a music video (but I could not find any subsantial coverage there) and it is harder to do a search for this since the song and album share the same name. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• The only third-party coverage for the music video was from RTTNews, so I think it is fair to say that it is not notable. I agree that as the title track it is hard to find sources covering the song independent from the album. HĐ (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Wipe Your Eyes" — Redirect to Overexposed. Not a notable song, fails WP:NSONGS. Also it's poorly sourced. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @AngelOfDestiny: How about songs other than "Wipe Your Eyes"? HĐ (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose based on your reasoning that a Redirect sounds fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect all, none meet WP:NSONGS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. Consensus was to merge to the list article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Leap-Frog (comics)

Leap-Frog (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Trivial fictional characters with no coverage outside of passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L while redirecting the page to it's section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to the character lists as an ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge what can be sourced to the encyclopedia or handbook to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. Article is WP:NOTPLOT and does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION (essay), there is not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Botht the merged content and the target article will be improved as a result of the merge. 15:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that there is encyclopedic material such that it satisfies the burden expected by our WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Safari version history

Safari version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Wikipedia articles should not be exhaustive logs of software updates." 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete We don't need a list of every last update that was made here, you need to prove why they're important. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent reasoning of the nominator Spiderone 19:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per previous consensus of the existence of similar articles for other Web Browsers (History of the Opera web browser, Firefox version history, Google Chrome version history, Internet Explorer version history to name a few). Nominator and other editors should consider that the policy in question doesn't say no version history articles are permitted, it says that notability must be established for articles like this. I will now cite press coverage on the last two versions to prove notability. I will be glad to add these citations to the article to prove notability, or find more citations on older versions to prove notability. Having an article like this is important and doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. It helps people, especially developers easily track when changes were made and features were made to Safari, without having to comb through Apple's archives. The article also definitely passes the notability test and I'm more than willing to provide more evidence to demonstrate that. Furthermore, the policy states, "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Many of these listings in this article state the biggest changes with major versions, as covered by reliable sources, while minor versions are simply listed as "security update". That sounds pretty reasonable and prudent to me, I don't think that's at all excessive detail. Again, I truly do not believe the existence of this article at all violates any Wikipedia policies. Herbfur (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  This defence, while it contains decent argumentation, is a bit at odds with the delete rationale: 17jiangz1 is not arguing there are insufficient sources to meet the notability threshold, but that per WP:NOT that Wikipedia should not have this kind of material. "It helps people, especially developers easily track when changes were made and features were made to Safari, without having to comb through Apple's archives" is the germ of an argument that the content is encyclopedic on the basis of being useful reference material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with the nominator's interpretation of the Wikipedia policy. The policy in question states, "(Not) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." My interpretation of this policy is that it imposes two requirements. First, the content must be notable, which I've provided sources to attempt to prove. And second, that it must not be overly exhaustive or excessively detailed to an extent that defies common sense. The name of this clause of the policy says "Not EXHAUSTIVE logs of software updates", it doesn't say "not logs of software updates". I find the word exhaustive to be key, that the policy prohibits unreasonable inclusion of non-notable content on software updates, but does not impose a blanket ban on software logs. Thus, I do not believe this article violates the Wikipedia policy cited. It's certainly notable and it isn't at all excessively detailed. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per above reason. Also related is iOS version history, watchOS#Version history, tvOS#Version history, etc. I would seriously consider removing iOS version history, which used to be the longest page on the English wiki, before removing Safari's. Admanny (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per above reason. A genuinely useful page that doesn't go into too much detail. 84.67.2.137 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This page is a very useful reference of which version of historic Safari uses which version of Webkit, which is useful for things like keeping track of what versions of early Chrome correspond to Safari versions. Notability for this content has been established in this discussion, and there is no clear Wikipedia policy saying this should be deleted (discussion above) Samboy (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I think that Herbfur's argument is compelling. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I am once again imploring that this page not be deleted. It is in no ways in violation of any Wikipedia policies. The nominator cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the text of that policy clearly does not apply to this article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "(Wikipedia is not)Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." The text of this policy doesn't at all seem to ban ALL articles dealing with lists of software updates, but rather that such articles need to meet two requirements: they must be notable, as judged by reliable 3rd party sources, and they must not be excessively detailed. The article passes the first requirement, as I've cited extensive coverage on these updates from Reliable Sources. Also, only the major versions receive a more detailed entry and minor versions receive just an entry saying, "security update". I don't at all see how that's unreasonable. Therefore, this page is neither excessively detailed nor not notable, so it should be kept. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep As per the above reasons. These pages aren't just useless updates, but have great utility to software developers and as Herbfur mentions, fulfills two conditions which exclude it from the rule listed by OP. SacredSunflower (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Whilst I agree that these type of lists usually don't work but these have more value than other similar lists. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Texas pride

Texas pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Creative essay fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTOPINION, and WP:OR. In desperate need of WP:TNT KidAd talk 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge Could be moved to a subsection in a Texas article, I don't see enough discussion in peer-reviewed journals to make it warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: fails NOR and SIGCOV but article may be kept if these issues are rectified. The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
• Keep per Don't mess with Texas unless you've done a BIG Interweb search. Seriously, folks, at worse this could be merged, but there's certainly lots of sources available, and its okay that not all of them are peer-reviewed. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete/TNT I think people of many place are prideful of where they come from, but this essay for a student project, per the creator's userpage, is largely WP:Synthesis combining historical tidbits and things Texans do. Culture of Texas is a possible merge target for some points in the last section but even if the concept of patriotism for a particular state is notable, this needs to be restarted. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. While it might be possible to create a legitimate article about any sort of "geography-based pride," this is an essay that is poorly written ("A picture perfect family like [the Ewings from Dallas], tied directly to Texas, furthers the Texas superiority stereotype and fuels Texas pride." Seriously?) and uses sources that are tangentially related at best (the "Events" section contains nothing directly related to the crux of the article), with lots of synthesis. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have stricken my !vote; see below. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This article is poor but not poor enough that it has to be nuked. Texas having its own pseudo-national identity is a very well known phenomenon.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Though it does not presently contain anything about "Texas pride" as it is used here, Texas#Texas self-perception exists and may be a viable target for a merge (if anything is salvageable) and redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I have deleted a large portion of superfluous and grandiose text from the lead and first section and changed the language in the other sections. The latter sections of the article are well written and referenced. If the lead and first section could have more references added I see no valid reason for this article to be deleted. Shabidoo | Talk 16:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The children who grow up learning to take such pride in their state grow up to be adults who continue to push the 'Texas is the best' narrative. This cycle continues and as a result, Texans, as a whole, outwardly portray immense amounts of state pride." Despite the cleanup attempt, we still have fluff like this. The Media section is barely sourced and almost superfluous, and the Events section is almost completely so. I stand by my !vote that this is not an encyclopedia article. It's WP:SYNTH at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I find your position a little extreme. Please help by improving the article, finding better sources and adding material. Shabidoo | Talk 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've attempted my own clean up of this article, and have stricken my !vote from above, as the change in tone of the article from both your and my edits since my comment to you have effectively changed the article to a point where it is not an overly-flowery essay anymore. I suppose I was discouraged by the state of the article at first, but removing the synthesis and other unsupported material seems to make this viable. I do not think deletion is necessary at this time; worst case scenario, a merge somewhere such as to Culture of Texas would be appropriate if it is determined that not enough material exists for a standalone article. However, I will abstain from !voting as I do not want to sound immodest as to the usefulness of the changes that I've made. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You did a good job at helping rescue the article. Thanks!! Shabidoo | Talk 16:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep: I have WP:SYNTH concerns about this article, particularly that most of the sources don't actually mention "Texas pride" but only various specific manifestations of Texas pride. However, I don't think this concern is significant enough for me to oppose the article's existence, considering the inclusion of these two sources: 1,2. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles requiring improvement and articles requiring deletion are different categories. The partially separate identity of Texas on the national scale of the United States is a notable and relevant topic, even if the article in question could use a cleanup. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge a basic sourced stub into Culture of Texas. Agree with nom, this is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH essay and the sources do not address the subject directly or indepth. Both the target article and sourced content will be improved through a selective merge. If the merged section every expands with sourced content showing notability for a stand alone article and meets SPLIT, it can be split. The name of the article is somewhat problematic, I assumed this was about an LGBTQ event, any redirect should take this into account.   // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and merge some of the content into Culture of Texas. Elassint ^Hi 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Allison Christine Johnson

Allison Christine Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A classic example of WP:BLP1E - no enduring notability. StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Article is for a relatively minor event regarding an otherwise low-profile individual with only transient significance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Minor local incident and news story. No long term repercussions. The article is presented as a BLP but has almost no actual biographical content. Take your pick from WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Either way, it is no good. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable graffiti creator. Not notable as an artists nor as an activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. I am concerned about social stigma associated with mental health issues that would attach to this person should a prospective employer, beau, or landlord conduct an Internet search and find this stub. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Lanka Premier League. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 08:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Lanka Premier League records and statistics

List of Lanka Premier League records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS, it is just a list of pointless statistics that have just been copied from ESPNcricinfo, which is the only source used in this. If people want to look up meaningless stats, they should use a stats website like Cricinfo rather than an encyclopedia intended to appeal to a broader audience. I'm sure some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments will come up, but just because other tournaments have stats articles, that doesn't make it right. As there has been just 1 season, this is comparable to the AFDs here for the IPL, which are getting a consensus to delete for the same reasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Joseph2302:, fair point. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken though, but isn't this article comparable to List of Indian Premier League records and statistics which is for every season of the IPL. While those articles are for individual seasons of the IPL. However if the problem is that there is likely to only be one season, then while a second season isn't confirmed yet some sources say it is probable,[34]. Like I said at the beginning though I am probably wrong so if I am feel free to correct me. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually there is another source about the second season [35]. Human (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • A third as well, [36] CreativeNorth (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep I think it should be kept. This is about the entire tournament not a sibgle season. A one season version of the list was created by an user and I redirected it to the 2020 article. About the Cricinfo source, it is actually the only reliable stats site for any of the other leagues around the world apart from their own site, and is used for the other tournament lists. So the same applies here. And a second season is almost confirmed according to sources mentioned above. But if you can convince me to delete the articles for some other reasons, I might consider my vote. Redirect to Lanka Premier League. I have changed my mind. Deletion seems to harsh as it can be speedily deleted when recreated in future. Redirecting seems like a better idea. Human (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes as Human says using List of Bangladesh Premier League records and statistics for reference all the sources there seem to be off Cricinfo. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There has only been one season of the LPL, so it's way too soon for all-time statistics, and the other AFDs show we don't want season statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Very strong delete - this is too soon as much as anything else. The list of "records" is way too indiscriminate and it lacks prose to link things together. This would be better served as a set of external links - at least that way it won't get out of date. Once the league has at least two seasons I might consider a cut down list of stats to be appropriate, but not the whole pile of stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete; textbook failure of WP:NOTSTATS, comprised entirely of excessive listings of unexplained statistics. No prose, and no sources discussing these records and statistics to provide context, only database sources to support the numbers themselves. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment please be aware of WP:CANVASSING at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lanka Premier League#Nomination of List of Lanka Premier League records and statistics for deletion- one user has told others to come over here to vote keep, which is a violation of the canvassing policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as creator I have since been swayed by others. Changed to Redirect to 2020 Lanka Premier League as per A Simple Human. As mentioned above by Joseph I apologize for my overly protective editing as the page creator and I apologize for breaking WP:CANVASSING. All the edits have now been deleted. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lanka Premier League. I don't agree here to delete this article. It should be kept as a redirect. The next year new season would be held as refs are provided above, and then we may re-write it by changing redirect to article. Morever, I also see that other leagues have records and statistics articles citing all sources from ESPN cricinfo but they are present there like List of Pakistan Super League records and statistics and List of Bangladesh Premier League records and statistics. Is it due to they have greater no. of seasons or something else? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect this to Lanka Premier League, so it would be easier to write stats for the next season, which is officially announced. Thank you. Tahaaleem ^Talk 18:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lanka Premier League per above. Fails per WP:NOTSTATS.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect Whole series is too recent as of yet. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Khalife

Peter Khalife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTY; WP:GNG is insufficient based on few articles profiling his company. Seany91 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, very easily passes WP:GNG. See malaeeb.com, jbeildailynews.com, sports-961.com, the961.com. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Why nominate this article. Clearly within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep on basis of sources highlighted by Nehme. GiantSnowman 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Tim Mills

Tim Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, and the biography has no citations other than IMDb DillsyOnWiki (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Article contains barely a smidgen of biographical or encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete it is time we stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Abid Raza Naqvi

Abid Raza Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete there are not enough sources here to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mario Judah

Mario Judah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable musician (in this version unreferenced) which has been submitted and declined several times, in the last instance rejected as lacking notability. (See Draft:Mario Judah). There was also an attempt to copy and paste the draft into mainspace which was ultimately deleted as CV (see here). No indication subject can pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Eagleash (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note- Could have nominated for speedy or PROD, but in view of history felt a wider discussion may be necessary (and avoid possible notice removal) and contributors can also consider the possibility of SALT. Eagleash (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and so on; please also consider temporary WP:SALT to prevent this article from being created again immediately after deletion Spiderone 10:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• speedy Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN, No evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Approve - passes WP:SINGER on point 1: has been covered by reliable and independent sources. This is even corroborated by the references in the rejected Draft:Mario Judah. Judah has 1.9 million monthly listeners on Spotify as of December 14, 2020. He also topped Spotify's Global & UK Viral Charts on October 15, 2020, and remained on the Top 10 for the following three weeks. Judah is verified on Instagram with over 500,000 followers, and has interactions with other verified hip hop musicians, such as Denzel Curry. Bgregz (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Note Bgregz has made few other edits outside this page, the article concerned or userpages. Eagleash (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • See ad hominem. Bgregz (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      • See WP:SPA. Eagleash (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Again, this is simply not about me. With millions of eyes on Mario Judah, it just seems disingenuous to claim that this artist is not notable. The Complex piece even covers Judah's tendency to go viral. Bgregz (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Covered in multiple reliable sources 1, 2.--Catlemur (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • YouTube is not typically considered a usable source; see WP:RSPYT. Eagleash (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2020‎ (UTC)
• Keep, it's very clear that he's gained enough relevance to be here. Blueyandicy (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - He has a lot of notable articles and featured interviews on him by notable and respectable sources as stated by others in the page. 99.247.44.174 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Not notable the sources cited here are either not independent (interviews), not RS, or do not give significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 09:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is notable as he has been the subject of articles by several independent, first-rate publications such as those provided by Bgregz. HeyitsBen ^talk 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. How is this not notable, there are a lot of reliable sources about the rapper himself. 2019AlwaysLit (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Notability cannot be supported by (for example) MusicBrainz, Facebook, Discogs.com, Spotify, IMDb, Amazon, blogs or his own self-published PR or social media accounts or routine listings. Eagleash (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My bro, do you not see Complex, Uproxx, or HotNewHipHop doing solo pages about this man? There's no social media accounts or Facebook or none of that, dude. 2019AlwaysLit (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. I get that people might use Wikipedia for self promotion. But I'm interested in using Wikipedia to find out more about this musician. He is notable in that he has two popular singles and he was featured on Genius. So I think that counts as notable. Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because he's a rising star doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve a page. Saw a couple of the opposition sides' claims saying that he doesn't have any credible sources about him; well he is a new artist after all! Just give it some time, and more information feeds will come in. Asides, his career is taking off pretty well, so it's not like he won't stumble across less networks. The least we could do is give it more time, and it'll pop up eventually.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurevanilla ash (talk • contribs) 6 January 2021 ((22:19)) (UTC)
  • See WP:TOOSOON. Eagleash (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with others that provide consistent articles about the subject. RodeoWrld (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Rasheed Omokafe Adeyanju

Rasheed Omokafe Adeyanju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Previously deleted in scope of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keo Soksela. Speedy-del tag removed by page creator who claims that this is an unrelated person of the same name, which I highly doubt (can't see the old version as I'm not an admin, but they all related to Cambodian football, so most likely the same person). --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Keo Soksela" is literally a completely , totally different name and title all-together? Furthermore , the page meets all criteria for a stub without any violations, whatsoever. I was not even aware that there a page previously apparently created as one can't even access / view it? This page should not be deleted because the page appears to not be a repost of material that was previously deleted. The page has substantially original content , non-identical to that of the previous page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not correlate with that of the material which was previously deleted. The information provided meets all relative criteria and credible claims , as well as sources / references. It is suitable to be edited ,expanded on and turned into a bigger and more comprehensive article in the future Glow--stick7 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Upon , doing a mere Google search , you can literally come to realize that the information is credible and the stub has room for edits, improvement , and expansion , opposed to "Keo Soksela" which happened to have been deleted for information not being factual/credible am I correct? also what is the correlation? A deletion seems a little far-fetched and unnecessary. Glow--stick7 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The footballer does not fail GNG and NFOOTY , which can be confirmed upon a simple 'Google' and clubs' history search. The stub just needs to be edited/ expanded which it surely , will be.Glow--stick7 (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - could not find any coverage that could even loosely be defined as significant coverage of the player, failing WP:GNG, has only had appearances recorded in the Cambodian and Turkish Cypriot leagues, none of which are listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 13:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Both Cambodia and Turkish Cypriot Leagues are listed at ,WP:FPL namely; C-League & KTFF Süper Lig Glow--stick7 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

They are listed in the 'not fully professional' section. If you believe this to be wrong, please start a discussion at WT:FPL Spiderone 14:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the correlation and validity of that? Anyway, I could swear , both were listed in the 'fully professional' section not so long ago...however must be my mistake , thanks for pointing that out. At the time of writing this, the player, played for and was also featured in another fully professional league , listed in the 'fully professional leagues', section - which is listed at WP:FPL , the Egyptian Premier League for Aswan SC(2017) Glow--stick7 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources verifying that he played a game for Aswan? I couldn't find any match reports or any database profile showing that he appeared in a league fixture for them Spiderone 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

He most likely didn't play for Aswan as the deal was cancelled per [37]. Same source also mentions Aswan as a Second Division club, and indeed they have relegated in 2017. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As per the main and previous statement regarding , leagues not listed at WP:FPL , after I confirmed that as incorrect, and the played has featured in leagues listed at WP:FPL - you then diverted to sections , avert from your first reasoning for deletion. Regarding Aswan , then it appears that , that could've been mentioned in a seperate 'talk' and/ or edited as the page is a stub, Still not grounds for deletion as per everything afore , mentioned. Glow--stick7 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whilst he clearly was on Aswan's books very briefly, is there any proof that he played a game? NFOOTBALL requires participation in at least one match and since GNG is failed, this article is relying on NFOOTBALL to pass Spiderone 15:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The article passes basic stub , GNG and basic stub NFOOTY criteria. As per second , numbered paragraph for association football at NFOOTBALL , "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." although the stub doesn't have that tag and is merely NFOOTY compliant , the player has featured and played for Cyprus club , Magusa Turk Gucu S.K. which is listed at [[WP:FPL] , there are also a few pictures on 'Google' images.

I found the following links ; https://www.facebook.com/mturkgucu/posts/2085793985043613 https://www.yeniduzen.com/omokafeye-olumlu-rapor-97685h.htm http://www.ktff.org/InfoBank/PlayerDetails/17718 http://kengadaffi.blogspot.com/2018/01/cyprus-club-snaps-up-nigeria-born.html Glow--stick7 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Facebook and Blogspot sources don't qualify as reliable sources. The other two don't do much to establish notability. Please also note that the Cypriot league is fully professional but Magusa Turk Gucu S.K. do not play in the Cypriot league, they play in the Turkish Cypriot league which is clearly listed as not fully pro. Spiderone 17:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Leagues that are a country's highest level are generally notable, for NFOOTY. Furthermore, the article meets GNG criteria for a stub regarding a WP:BLP and association football stub and has room to be edited and expanded on.Glow--stick7 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't vote twice. If this stub can be expanded then please show me three good reliable, independent sources that could be used. Spiderone 09:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The voTES don't count nor are seen as actual votes , so the relevance isn't as detrimental. Leagues that are a country's highest level are generally notable, for NFOOTY. Furthermore, the article meets GNG criteria for a stub regarding a WP:BLP and association football stub and has room to be edited and expanded on, in the future. P.S. The sources already referenced meet the criteria for the stub and all the topics/ tags it pertains, towards. Glow--stick7 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not spread misleading information. There are more top-level leagues that are not fully-pro and fail NFOOTY than the other way around. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Spread"? Leagues that are a country's highest level are generally notable, for NFOOTBALL . The article meets GNG criteria for a stub regarding a WP:BLP and association football stub. Glow--stick7 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

He does not pass GNG as you have not provided sources that show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and he does not pass NFOOTBALL as you have not provided any evidence that he has played in a game between two teams playing in fully professional leagues. If you believe that the Cambodian and Turkish Cypriot leagues should be considered as fully professional, then please start a discussion at WT:FPL. Spiderone 15:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP:FPL hasn't been updated yet but I presume those leagues will be regarded as fully pro in the near future, especially Cambodia. Thanks for your suggestion Spiderone .The stub does pass GNG , particularly, regarding reliable sources , independent of the subject , https://www.khmertimeskh.com/36936/omokafe-at-the-double-to-down-crown/ | https://nationaldailyng.com/rasheed-omokafe-bags-international-striker-of-2018-cool-wealth-award/ | https://www.instagram.com/coolwealth_awards/?hl=en | https://pageone.ng/2020/08/03/cambodia-home-play-epl-serie-a-rasheed-omokafe/ | https://24bcd.com/newsdetail/O-Rasheed-Returns-to-Cambodia-with-a-promise-to-take-the-Metfone-Cambodia-League-by-Storm | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5BHPXqJ6VE | https://www.sporyeni.com/omokafe-resmi-imzayi-atti-4592h.htm | https://mediamastersng.com/2020/02/24/rasheed-omokafe-scores-in-army-debut/ Glow--stick7 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The best sources look to be [38] [39]. I'm not sure that the rest count towards GNG as the sources are either unreliable like this one and the YouTube video or they are painfully brief. Spiderone 16:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Khmer Times , is reliable and therefore counts as a reliable source towards GNG , too. Glow--stick7 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The mention was very brief and doesn't give us any strong coverage of the player that we could build a biography from. Spiderone 16:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The player is still young and seems to be an active player albeit coverage is not sufficient enough. Surely the stub will be expanded on the in the ,future. Nonetheless, the sources indicate that the stub is of valid and appropriate, nature in accordance with basic GNG stub, criteria. Glow--stick7 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. ( https://mediamastersng.com/2020/02/24/rasheed-omokafe-scores-in-army-debut ) is an adequate ,reliable source and includes coverage too, even if perceived as nominal , still sufficient for expansion material and/ or source referencing etc. Glow--stick7 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spiderone:, @BlameRuiner:, @GiantSnowman: Happy New Year what's your consensus , at present? Glow--stick7 (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion remains he is non-notable. GiantSnowman 09:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

In accordance to actual, par via GNG WP:BLP stub ,criteria? Glow--stick7 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: https://mihaaru.com/local_sports/28524 | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Maldivian_Third_Division_Football_Tournament) 2017 Maldivian Third Division Football Tournament (Best Player - Award) Glow--stick7 (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that he fails WP:GNG on the evidence available Spiderone 10:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You @Spiderone: , requested for three good sources , I provided sources which display strong coverage that could be used to as the foundation for a biography or expansion, exactly like many other WP:BLP , WP:stub / WP:Football-stub 's. , you , yourself confirmed that two "looked to be good" , and just now again , added 2 more. The player is young and active. What else is your argument at this, point and why? Glow--stick7 (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that they show good coverage. I pointed out two sources that were the better ones but they were still brief. Being the best player in the Maldivian Third Division is a very weak claim to notability. Winning the '2018 Cool Wealth Award' is also not a strong claim. Please be wary of the essay WP:BLUDGEON; continually repeating the same points over and over in the hope that other people will eventually just give up and agree with you is not always the best way to approach the subject. The lady doth protest too much as William Shakespeare once wrote. Spiderone 10:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I disrepute your statement @Spiderone: regarding the fact that I am WP:BLUDGEON 'ing the process. @BlameRuiner:'s initial statement and argument leaned more towards the article not having credible and factual information/ sources in the exact scope of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keo Soksela which I had , proved to be wrong.Thereafter , your vote as well as Giant 's was regarding , WP:GNG , WP:stub criteria which I am absolutely entitled to share my thoughts on the matter , validate, comment, learn about and discuss. I appreciate all your input, suggestions , reasonings and opinions but please let's not make room to disrespect each other ,as well as perpetuate condescending tones, and remain WP:CIVIL. Glow--stick7 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Glow--stick7's arguments, including the incorrect claim that the subject passes NFOOTBALL, have been thoroughly debunked. Number 57 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I slightly understand your points @Number 57: , however the article still matches up to WP:BASIC ,WP:ANYBIO ,WP:SPORTSPERSON , WP:LISTBIO , WP:SOURCELIST criteria per WP:GNG , WP:stub ,as afore mentioned in some of the points , above.Glow--stick7 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails to meet GNG. It is time to rid Wikipedia of footballcruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I value your opinion @Johnpacklambert: , however the rest of your statement seems a little WP:POINTy / WP:TAGTEAM ("It is time to rid Wikipedia of footballcruft") as well as unWP:CIVIL.Glow--stick7 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Glow--stick7 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Glow--stick7 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions.Glow--stick7 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.Glow--stick7 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I Do, I Do, I Do

I Do, I Do, I Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete advertisements for films, such as trailers, and not sources that add towards passing GNG. IMDb is not reliable. There is no indication that this film is even close to meeting notability guidelines. It is time we stopped acting as if every commerially released film, including every made for TV film, is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another Hallmark film that completely fails NFILM and GNG. Hopefully, this is the last one. Spiderone 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Sansano

Daniel Sansano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A7 tag repeatedly blanked by what I suspect is a sock. This is an essentially unsourced BLP and appears to be a self-written vanity page; I can find no indication that this individual is notable. Hence Speedy delete per CSD A7 and/or G11. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Google news search for his name shows no results meeting reliable sources requirements at this point in his career. YouTube channel linked has just a few thousand views. Clear deletion with the page as is, if things change for him in the future, a new page can be created. CosmicNotes (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - No indication of notability at all. I also tagged for A7 but the notice was removed. The page was created by Daniel Sansano so probably also a COI. --John B123 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - per nom, and likely COI. The article says that he started this May so even if he were potentially notable then WP:TOOSOON would likely apply. It also mentions being in a school play which the one of the thinnest straws I've seen anyone grasp for in terms of notability. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Pahunkat (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

N.B. Sock blocked 31h. Pahunkat (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - clear A7 and clear G11; blatant misuse of Wikipedia Spiderone 13:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt - utterly, utterly unnotable. Given the tendency of the user to continue to add this page I'd say salt it also. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Étoilé

Étoilé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is an open source desktop environment with minimal to no usage base or particular notability. Project has been dead for eight years and the page appears (as with many such FOSS pages) to have been intended and written as an advertisement for the software rather than it meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. Foonblace (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The article lacks references to independent, reliable sources and my Google search failed to find any. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There seems to be a complete lack of substantial third-party coverage. And being an abandoned project doesn't help in that context. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chef Anil

Chef Anil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poor sourcing and reads like a PR piece. Admittedly, it is difficult to search for sources as the name is quite common, but one would think this search would yield something. Ultimately does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 08:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kinu ^t/_c 08:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 08:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 08:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable chef. Weak media coverage. The article only meant for promotion. Fails WP:Basic WP:GNGRationalPuff (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as this fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dalyboy Belgason

Dalyboy Belgason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film director. Naïve Google search for either Dalyboy Hyppolite or Dalyboy Belgason finds the usual vanity hits showing that he uses social media, and finds no third-party coverage. Article has been moved to article space twice by author and back to draft space twice by reviewers, one of whom raised COI concerns, which have not been addressed. A third move to draft space would be move-warring, and the author has a right to have the article in article space, where the community has a right to take it to Articles for Deletion. The author wrote, on the talk page, on 4 November: " Please kindly see that this draft is approved as its over 6 weeks already. Thank you". In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, unless you get paid when the article is accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete clearly not enough to actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails to satisfy our general notability criteria and WP:CREATIVE. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - searches show they meet neither WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Amanda Adkins (politician)

Amanda Adkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason Activist (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for retention. See Talk. Activist (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep references seem fine to me. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 07:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a state-level major party leader and congressional nominee. KidAd talk 07:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG based on sources cited in the article and coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for retention. Activist (talk) Activist (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: previous comment is made by the nominator.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

John A. Flores

John A. Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Google news search for his name and his company showed no reliable news sources that would meet WP:RS guidelines. At this point in time article does not meet General Notability Guidelines. If sources emerge or new sources are published in the future, a new page can be created. CosmicNotes (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this bio without indication of importance per WP:A7. Alternately, delete because it's WP:TOOSOON at best and the subject has received literally no coverage in WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of nobility. 'Donut Pupusa' not seems to be a widely known food item. Cited sources are self-promotional. The article is wholly intended to promote the subject. RationalPuff (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - please note that there is now a related deletion discussion for Donut Pupusa. Spiderone 15:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: article deleted via A7/G11--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - one video showing a TV interview on Facebook is not enough to pass WP:BASIC on its own Spiderone 15:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete – Does not appear to meet GNG, strong suspicion of COI to the subject. Even if kept article is highly promotional and would need a neutral rewrite.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the sourcing is no where near showing notability. Not everyone who starts a restaurant is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tex Hill (actor)

Tex Hill (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Journeymen don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails NACTOR as per nom; I can't see any evidence that he would get through WP:BASIC either so meets neither specific nor general notability criteria Spiderone 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this article relies to much on IMDb which is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Letlow

Letlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page that seems to run afoul of the benchmark in WP:NAMELIST; it could be a list of everyone with the surname Letlow. FalconK (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment as creator - these two are the only bios with the surname Letlow. It could be deleted because it is just two, but the reason I made the list was because this page was originally just a redirect to Russ Letlow's page. 777burger ^{(LET'S TALK)} 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 06:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This is a standard name article that meets WP:NNAME as it has two notable bearers. There's no violation of WP:NAMELIST here, as it recommends placing people who aren't known mononymously on pages exactly like these. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. --Kinu ^t/_c 11:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Could be moved to Letlow (surename) or Letlow (family name). Good enough for a disambiguation, maybe not good enough for an article. --Gereon K. (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Standard surname article - see WP:NNAME. We have 1000s of surname articles like this with just two people. Edwardx (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: it could be a list of everyone with the surname Letlow, it not just "could" but "should". Surname-holder lists are a standard and useful part of the encyclopedia. If there is just one name-holder, we redirect. The reader may have found something referring to "Bloggs' key innovation" or "politicians such as Bloggs", and, especially if the surname also has uses as a placename or common noun, we help that reader by listing surname holders. (Now, given-name articles are a different kettle of fish, to my mind!).PamD 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bubble (2006 film). MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Zohar Liba

Zohar Liba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article's only sources are an unreliable move site and an IMBd profile. Having failed to find significant coverage of him in RIS, he would have to meet WP:NACTOR to be notable. I believe he meets none of the criteria, since he does not seem to have had any significant roles. In the recent El Cid (TV series), his role is small enough to warrant only trivial mentions in Spanish news coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

• Redirect to The Bubble (2006 film), which is his only significant role. Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. If anyone is losing sleep over my decision, ping me and I'll relist for the rest of the week. Missvain (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Friday Night Funkin'

Friday Night Funkin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any legitimate coverage in reliable sources about this Flash-based rhythm game which is still in development. That means that it fails our general notability guideline. To the people who may come here from this game's community: popularity does not automatically beget notability. (Taken straight to AfD because it would be likely to be deprodded.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Couldn't find even a single mention of it anywhere besides content created by the game's developers themselves or their fans. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 08:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - at best this is WP:TOOSOON; no independent coverage and the article is currently complete OR Spiderone 09:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - completely non-notable, no independent coverage, page reads as if it was a fan-page Foonblace (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Clearly fails all notability guidelines we have. IceWelder [✉] 11:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Some, and possibly all, of the text in this article is lifted from the Friday Night Funkin' wikia site. I was reading the Lemon Monster article earlier over there today and the wording is exactly the same. A cursory look says this is the same for the rest of the character listings. Zero citations, a lack of notability, and the text lifted off of another wiki seems a little much. It was all added by one user in this edit. Maybe some day it'll be worth an article, but not today, and not with this content. —FrostyBeep 12:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Amrutha Geetham

Amrutha Geetham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no extensive coverage in RS nor reviews as far as I can see Spiderone 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Snehapoorvam Meera

Snehapoorvam Meera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. No real references. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Njan Onnu Parayatte

Njan Onnu Parayatte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. No real references. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - couldn't find a single review Spiderone 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ilakkangal

Ilakkangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. No real references. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kattu Vannu Vilichappol

Kattu Vannu Vilichappol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. Both references are not really references. Kolma8 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pooram (film)

Pooram (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Circa Enterprises

Circa Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find any indication of notability, most of the sources I found were just about mergers nothing significant about the company. Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. I don't see in-depth sources, but ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Hinton

Joseph Hinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced biography of a person notable only as the namesake of a city neighbourhood. This is not an "inherent" notability freebie, however: it can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but is not an instant free pass that exempts him from having to have any sources just because he existed. I would ordinarily just have redirected this to the neighbourhood and walked away, but there's another person getting bumped down to disambiguated status even though he has a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- so in actual fact, this needs to be deleted so that Joseph Hinton (composer) can be moved to the plain title. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete having a community named after you is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MILL - he was basically a neighborhood activist. Albany, New York named a local park for a similar person, but she does not rate an article, either. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

King & Country (company)

King & Country (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Company which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This is a new article which needs improvement, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Such improvement is clearly possible because it has already started. And there are yet more sources to find and add, such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Of the current five refs, the Korea Times is significant independent coverage that supports notability. I can't access the full South China Morning Post: aricle Andrew mentions in the previous comment, but it appears to be a second significant and indepedent one, so there we are at WP:CORP notability (WP:SIGCOV per GNG). DMacks (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. I made the first expansion after finding what I considered sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources: the Korea Times article all about the company, the South China Morning Post magazine account of it as one of the companies founded by Neilson and McAllister, and the Collectors Weekly description of it as one of the most important manufacturers of toy soldiers. Above Andrew Davidson cites another lengthy article about the company in the South China Morning Post, affirming that it passes GNG and probably the special criteria for businesses, too, as dominant in its field; I have now further expanded the article using this source. (Note: the SCMP demand for subscription can be circumvented using Wayback, see the references as now in the article.) The article was created in a poor state, but the Korea Times reference was there from the second reference, and examination of that source might have suggested this was not a PROD candidate; that it was then sent to AfD after my expansion makes me wonder whether the nominator looked at the references. In any case, notability is clearly demonstrated now, in my opinion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I think there's a fairly strong consensus to delete this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public Perception of Jared Kushner

Public Perception of Jared Kushner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While the title is certainly an improvement over the original, the page is still a glaring and unnecessary WP:CONTENT/WP:POVFORK. The majority of this article's content is (or can be) covered in a clearer way on Jared Kushner KidAd talk 03:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Appears to be a WP:POVFORK, and the material is already sufficiently covered at Jared Kushner § Controversies. CThomas³ (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, and merge with Jared Kushner, per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 04:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and comment There was a G10 tag on the article originally, but the creator removed it without explanation. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; clearly unnecessary fork with POV issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Surprised this even an article. Delete as per the above reasons. SacredSunflower (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• None of these arguments are even slightly reasonable. Keep the article up and if there are any things that you feel like should be removed/added then do it. Wikipedia is after all a community project and so the more you add into it and the more neutral you make it, the better. But that doesn't mean you should keep on deleting other articles, even when they are completely reasonable to exist. Also, literally tons of other politicians have their "Public Perception" articles and so it's completely rational that there should be for this one too. Marcosoldfox (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious WP:POVFORK that does not need a stand-alone article. I agree with nom that the content makes more sense on Jared Kushner. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Adding: I've reviewed the article creator's arguments below and still don't agree that there's a need for a fork (or "subarticle") of Jared Kushner. I suggest using the information and sources in this article to improve the primary article. Schazjmd (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bruh, you work for the Army lol. Do what you will. So much for non-biased wikipedia after all. Delete it then. Just thought there could be open discussion on topics relating to what's already widely known out there, but nope; the moment you write about a government official with hundreds of millions of dollars and who purposefully worsened the Health Crisis and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, then suddenly it's too much. You can't talk about it. All the President's men, am I right? Marcosoldfox (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment for everyone, including reviewer - I closed this as an early delete and User:Liz requested me to reopen. I went to reopen it and realized that User:Marcosoldfox re-created the article. Shortly thereafter, User:Spiderone nominated it for speedy deletion. So.....I guess we'll just see how this rides out. Also, please be WP:CIVIL and stop claiming "bias" etc. I really don't want to see this escalate. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, and I say this with all due respect, that by the time the first edits were done someone had scheduled it to be deleted with absolutely no stated reason or motive. --Just a speedy deletion for no reason whatsoever, not even an explanation --. And I even messaged the person with all due respect and he didn't even want to explain anything about it. Shortly after posting the article, I got a message from User:Liz who took it seriously and saw that there really was genuine, bulky material for this article and more than justifiably realized there was legitimacy behind it and decided not to delete it, and then advised me to change the name to a more neutral-sounding title. So that's what I did. On her honest advice. Since wikipedia edits are public you can see everything messaged on the User_talk:Liz#Jared_Kushner_page. You can see all of it, 100%. While at the same time when I tried messaging the user who tried to delete it, he wouldn't even hear my arguments and promptly removed anything I asked him. If you see all the sources and all the information, you'll quickly realize that everything in the article is completely and resolutely backed up, and I'd welcome anyone to edit as much as they find it adequate. Yes, I will be civil with anyone who wants to edit, but the outright partisan attempts to delete an honest work is bound to be outrageous - absurd, even. If anything I think that the article has to be remained and we have to discuss how to improve it, remove and add sections; and that can only be achieved through consensus creation which I'm promptly encouraging right now. I have made it to be as completely non-partisan as possible and nobody would like to have his work destroyed, much less erased, and especially without sound reason or argument. Honestly I just want to leave it to the editors to decide on how to best improve the article but for that it cannot ever be justifiably deleted without sound reason. It's up for the consensus-creation to decide, and I think everyone can overwhelmingly soundly agree on that. Thank you.

Marcosoldfox (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with Jared Kushner. A lot of the statements in this WP:POVFORK are cited. Truly, WP:RS coverage of him tends to point out a lot of highly unfavourable facts, and WP:NPOV requires neutral editing, not neutral content. We don't have to censor things that ought to embarrass the subject of a BLP if they're well-cited to a reliable source. Calling something an WP:ATTACKPAGE when it cites 24 sources including several national newspapers and broadcast news networks is a stretch and speedy isn't appropriate. But on a purely editorial basis, documentation of the public behaviour of Kushner and journalistic perceptions of it should be confined to Jared Kushner. Otherwise what is the article on Kushner even about? FalconK (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, there shouldn't be a merge on it. There nearly is not enough on this topic and there should honestly be an entire Wikipedia series on the topic of Jared - and trust me, you will find plenty of sources for it... many more than there are right now. Not doing it would be comparable to not creating a series entry on George Bush, or Al Gore, etc... There simply is too much conversation on this topic for it not to be considered as immensely pertinent to Wikipedia, put to be created and edited immediately. Second, if there is any thing that seem unfavorable, then I'd gladly welcome the community to edit and put out all the information and facts in the most non-partisan, democratic way possible. But deleting it CANNOT be the answer; it would be outrageous, even. The only way forward is towards the communal editing of the topic and presenting all facts forward together. It's a pretty open topic so I'd happily encourage everyone to discuss and enhance the article's quality as much as possible, and for editors to create a consensus on it. And yeah, pretty much there is an immense amount of networks on this topic that all point out the facts, backing up everything said but even suggesting much more to be said on the topic. It would be great seeing more people working on it and creating a series on the subject; it deserves it more than everything I know of on Wikipedia right now. Thanks and have a great New Year's Eve (we deserve it.)

Marcosoldfox (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom for obvious reasons as stated above by other editors. This is a blatant case of WP:POVFORK. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork and merge any usable content into Jared Kushner where much of this material is already mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment With all due respect, this cannot be fathomably considered as a POVFORK and much less that it be appropriate to a merger. If anything I'd like editors to enhance the article as much as possible as it's a consensus-building article and not a monopoly on the subject. As FalconK said, calling an article that has 24 faithful and verifiable sources a POVFORK is a stretch and deletion isn't appropriate at all. Please edit and add as it is appropriate and let's build consensus over the article -- there is just an abundant array of truthful sources online to back everything up. I'd like arguments to be given and not just accusations of "bias" in a topic as open and widely discussed as this one. Please keep the article up and edit it as appropriate. Open discussion would be much appreciated. Marcosoldfox (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant fork; whether it's a POV fork or just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, it's still a redundant fork. By all means, add to the relevant section of Jared Kushner (if there is even that much to add). The article creator understands that this is a community decision. Nothing of value needs to be lost here. Nobody is saying that the information should be censored or deleted, it just doesn't warrant a separate article. "Public perception of ___" would only be justifiable in an extremely rare number of cases and I'm not seeing that here. Part of editing also involves identifying what content is important and what doesn't need to be added. Of course, there are hundreds of articles that mention Kushner but we don't need to add every single inane detail. This is, after all, a general and global encyclopaedia not Trumppedia. Spiderone 23:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. We have completely separate articles on many persons that are exactly like this one. We have a Public image of George W. Bush, Public image of Bill Clinton etc., all who have been government officials. We even have articles on people who haven't even been president! like Public image of Sarah Palin and many, many others. There are many Forks on all sorts of subjects and especially public images of public servants and to argue otherwise would be only disingenious or a part of cherry-picking. I say it with all due respect, but it'd be outrageous to argue that a person with hundreds (if not thousands!) of different sources backing up everything cannot have its own article, even more on Wikpedia.

• Consider what is said outright at Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks as content policy. It's abundantly clear by any non-partisan that the creation of this article is more than allowed and goes fully with Wikipedia Policy. Consider the rule itself and see:

   *The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

• Clearly it is NOT a POVFORK. The article even goes in absolute agreement with the rules; and then presents different points of view as it is. It's all backed by reputable, verifiable sources. The article even changed to "perception" going outright in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. I want everyone to edit and give more information onto the article as suitable, but deleting it or merging it CANNOT be the answer, not only due to justifiable reasoning but due to Wikipedia Policy itself, which is made all too clear. If there is a consensus on the subject, then let it be. All points of view are given -- there is absolutely no excuse to try deleting it. I welcome everyone and anyone to add onto it as much as possible as to a complete agreement on the subject, and to even have all different POVs onto the subject. The purpose is to create a community-driven article, not a one-sided deletion incursion. To argue otherwise would go over the edge of blatant bias, not to mention against Wikipedian ethos itself... If you'd like to add more to it, create discussion on the Talk Page, and to enhance the article, I more than welcome you to do so; but so far it has been only a constant incursion to delete a completely sound and backed-up article with little to no conversation on the real issue -- which is what is important to me and a community-driven project. Everyone that wants to edit and input more POVs, are even encouraged right now, going in accord with the policy on Acceptable FORK. Thank you. Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Marcosoldfox, I suggest that you read the useful essay Don't bludgeon the process. An argument does not become more persuasive by repeating it over and over again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I agree. I know what it is. Respectfully, I just wanted to let my argument be well-understood, especially when it's clear that there are many, many other articles out there that are exactly the same as this one as containing "Public Image of..." -- completely reasonable to exist. I excuse myself for any appearance of repetition, but I not only stand by my argument, but strengthen it. As the philosopher Wittgenstein said :"And this value will be the greater the better the thoughts are expressed — the more the nail has been hit on the head." It's always better to make oneself abundantly clear. I appreciate your time on hearing my arguments and I stand on everything I said. Thank you for your time.Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per Spiderone. It lies somewhere between POVFORK and redundant CONTENTFORK, but either way it's a delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Spiderone. It's an unneeded fork. --Michael Greiner 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. No I think that deleting it would be outrageous and that it must be kept up. Let the editors come in and improve it. So far I have seen not a single reasonable argument against it being kept up but isntead only a barrage of attacks on it. The article must be kept.Marcosoldfox (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Marcosoldfox, you have already been advised against bludgeoning and yet you persist with that poor behavior. Please stop. It is disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I have my doubts that anyone needs a seperate article on the public perception of them, however Mr. Kushner is clearly not someone for whom this is the case. It take a huge amount of sources to justify splitting up a biography, that is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Further discussion after my relist reinforced the delete consensus. Serious discussion was had around whether there existed a viable alternative to deletion through a redirect/merge. However, there is a consensus that the proposed target does not have a strong connection to be a viable redirect target and that deletion is the consensus outcome of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DartMUD

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/DartMUD
• Articles for deletion/DartMUD (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/DartMUD (3rd nomination)

DartMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write an encyclopedic article on the topic without resorting to original research. (Being mentioned by Raph Koster as influential could the basis for mentioning in another article, perhaps, but doesn't give any content with which we can write a dedicated article, i.e., significant coverage.) It had no substantive additional coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 05:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Primary and tertiary sources are given, but neither adds to notability. There seemingly no significant secondary sources to speak of. Apart from Google Books, WP:VG/RS has just one hit, which is in a comment section under an unrelated article. IceWelder [✉] 10:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete for not being notable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Pinged by the bot. I've not been affiliated with this MUD in years, but none of the arguments in the 2nd AfD are addressed in the nom or the delete votes here: At the time in the 1990s it was a thing, this MUD did a couple of innovative things that influenced other MMOs, and the article notes that with appropriate WP:SPS of statements to that effect by an industry expert (Raph Koster) that meet our sourcing guidelines. WP:NTEMP means that even though it's likely a dwindling number of a dying breed, it got coverage that meets the WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Why are you listed as having a conflict of interest on this article's talk page?

  Wikipedia's notability criteria is more stringent today than it was a decade ago at the last AfD. What sourcing are you referencing that "meets the GNG", in specific? Koster's comments are literally passing mentions in the linked sources. czar 06:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, for a few years in the early 2000's, long before I was anyone special on Wikipedia, DartMUD lived in my house, about 4' from where I currently sit. Those days are long gone, and I haven't been an active coder there for, um, 15 years? I was surprised to see that as well, because I didn't add it--some IP address did, apparently from the date and associated invective, around the time that I was being drummed out of the functionary/admin corps. Whatever.

  I really doubt notability requirements have changed sufficiently that the 2nd AfD result would not be valid under the current guidelines. I just reread WP:SPS and it still talks about recognized expert blogs, etc. being useful for establishing notability. For kicks and giggles, here's one that's a bit too meta to put in the article [40]. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  You might try Googling "dartmud site:raphkoster.com" to see what he has listed on his own site; I think there are about 4-6 non-redundant mentions, in different articles there, at least one of which is another article on Wikipedia Notability and MUDs. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - A borderline WP:CSD#G11, and I as an uninvolved admin would have deleted it if it were tagged that way before it was brought here. If it was a thing, show me third-party reliable sources, even if they're offline. Because I can't find them online. And even if they exist, this article would need to be gutted and completely rewritten from scratch to get rid of all the advertising. Worthy of note, self-published sources do not establish notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  You're an admin? Then you're familiar with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions, right? And you're aware that WP:SPS by a recognized expert, which Koster is, is an RS for all uses? Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  • • Very much so. Doesn't change the fact this page is written like an advertisement and would be eligible for deletion on that basis. Doesn't change the fact that a nine year old AFD didn't think this was advertising when it so blatantly is - how Wikipedia has changed in that amount of time. Furthermore, a reliable source does not mean notability is established. I want you to think very hard on what you're arguing, here. So, if I ran a website, I could claim someone notable said something about my site, and publish it on my site. And maybe they did say it. But now I'm establishing my own notability. That's not what notability is. Notability is significant coverage in third-party reliable sources independent of the subject. Don't mix up having a reliable source talk about the subject with establishment of notability, a mistake almost all of the "Keep" voters made in the second AFD. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. The high POV issues on the page would most likely qualify for WP:TNT, even if it were notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguably there is already a delete consensus, but relisting given the keep unanimity of the previous nomination (even if it was 9 years ago).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to LPMud and add a mention there. As noted by several here, this was an influential mud, and while the article is probably not worth keeping in its current form, The LPMud article would benefit from a short summary of this content. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  With what secondary source for that claim? czar 07:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Why does it need to be secondary? CThomas³ (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Because we haven’t actually established this is a notable MUD at all. Anything published on DartMUD’s site is reliable SPS coverage for establishing facts in line with the guideline, but does not establish notability of DartMUD itself. Bottom line: if DartMUD is notable, it would be talked about in reliable sources outside of DartMUD’s website. If it isn’t, it’s not even notable for a mention in the encyclopedia at all. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Except that's the wrong standard to apply: if we were to establish this a notable MUD, we would be able to close this AfD as keep. The standard is far lower to be mentioned in another article. We have an industry expert's claim that DartMUD was a significant contributor to the genre; that was enough for a snow-keep nine years ago, and I would posit it's enough to justify a short mention on another article today. If you're saying that every single fact on Wikipedia needs to be attributed to a secondary source, we've got a lot of work to do, as there are probably hundreds of millions of them that fail that particular test. CThomas³ (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

      Noteworthiness, not notability. To your question, we base articles on secondary sources. Primary and self-published expert sources are used for filling in the cracks, not writing the basis for the article. Second, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If this game is influential, let's see a single secondary source print it. What you propose is a single sentence mention of DartMUD currently sourced to a blog post by Koster in which he offhandedly says he would have chosen DartMUD among others as canonical influences. It's a personal preference and has nothing to do with LPMud, the target you recommended. re: secondary sourcing, yes, there's a lot of work to do and no, I would not read into a brigaded AfD from nine years ago as having any weight. Mind that Koster himself wrote over a decade ago about better preserving MUD history. That no one has answered that call for this MUD either in that decade or prior should be an indication of how MUD scholars regard its noteworthiness. czar 05:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Thank you, I agree that secondary sources are preferred when available, and certainly they are required to establish notability of a particular topic. However, we are no longer talking about basing an entire article on the claim by Koster (that's the article we're about to delete); we're now talking about including one single sentence in another full article. That would be, in my opinion, filling in the cracks.
        I must admit I am confused by your assertion that DartMUD has nothing to do with LPMud, given that it is an example of one. Further, I don't agree the claim that DartMUD is an influential LPMud is particularly extraordinary; to me this falls under the category of innocuous facts that are not subject to serious dispute. Are you saying that there is contradictory evidence, that Koster has a conflict of interest, or that this claim would significantly alter mainstream assumptions about LPMuds in general? CThomas³ (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The best source for this claim that I can find is probably this. There is also this and this as well. I certainly concur that these are not anywhere close to enough to keep the article, but they should be enough for a mention somewhere else, if not LPMud then perhaps Ultima Online.
        By the way, I don't think that the fact that no one "answered the call" to preserve DartMUD's is an indictment of its significance. MUDs in general have been practically ignored; it's a shame, but that's just how it is, and it's not dissimilar to many other early internet topics. CThomas³ (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

        MUDs have had lots of academic coverage—plenty more than other niche fields—just not in an encyclopedic fashion about individual, historical MUDs. I think it's fair to say no one has yet to answer that call but that's also off-topic.

        Those Koster mentions do not even mention LPMud in relation to DartMUD. It would have no relevance to say "Koster considers DartMUD part of the canon of Western MMOs"[41] within the LPMud article since LPMud has no relation—it's trivia/just sticking the name somewhere for its own sake. I think the source I just linked has the greater claim to the MUD's significance than those linked above, which also do not mention LPMud in relation to DartMUD. czar 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to LPMud per Cthomas3. DartMUD clearly doesn't have independent notability, but a mention in LPMud is likely warranted. WP:ATD establishes a presumption in favor of ATDs whenever possible, and I find that the sources even if primary can justify a one-sentence mention of DartMUD in LPMud. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• With respect, I’m afraid I have to disagree with your premise here. I’m all in favor of ATD when warranted, but in this case all the sources we have are primary sources. There is no secondary coverage; the passing mention by Koster is sourced to DartMUD’s own website. I feel that performing such a redirect without a single secondary source is adding promotion of a non-notable product. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - not only does it fail the WP:GNG, but there doesn’t seem to even have the sourcing the verify it is notable for inclusion on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. As Red Phoenix notes, without at least one solid secondary source, I don't even see a redirect as being justified here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sive, Paget & Riesel

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sive, Paget & Riesel
• Articles for deletion/Sive, Paget & Riesel (2nd nomination)

Sive, Paget & Riesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails in passing WP:GNG Akronowner (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
• Mild Keep Would seem to be notable, are they mentioned in any peer-reviewed law journals? They seem to have a few landmark cases in the environmental field. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak delete - they had a notable founder, and they had notable clients, but is that enough? Bearian (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There are mentions so we know the firm exists and had some high profile cases. And appears to have had notable founders. But there's nothing written *about* the company. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rockvale Middle School

Rockvale Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Single source in article is not IS RS, it is a government database record. Looks like this is a wonderful school, but it does not have SIGCOV for N.   // Timothy :: talk  02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 777burger ^{(LET'S TALK)} 05:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge:This article is two days old. It is a stub. I have found one independent reference in Rockvale High School. So references are out there if we make the right search- Rockvale High School is also a stub, merging would allow interested editors to work both article up. We could possible use some of our expertise to help them.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Middle Schools are almost never notable. There is no reason for merger. Articles about building schools are very common, which is why we came to accept that a large portion of high schools are notable. We have absolutely held the line against anything that is not a top level secondary school, so this article should be deleted with maximum speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, what we've historically done in this situation is to redirect the lower school to the district. As redirects are cheap and serve a legitimate indexing function, and since WP:ATD is a policy, I see no reason not to do that here. 174.254.193.114 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). Not enough independent in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Nom Comment: I have no objections to a redirect.   // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). As I see zero reason not to redirect this. It's clear there is not enough sources out there for it to pass WP:GNG though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Adamant1, TimothyBlue: It's within policy and would save a lot of editor time and stress if when you find US elementary school and middle school articles that fail notability you'd simply BOLDly redirect them to the school district's article (or lacking an article on the district, the appropriate settlement article). If you get pushback, then bring it to AFD. If you do that, please add {{r from school}} to the redirect. That template will automatically handle fixing the talk page and adding it to appropriate lists and cats. 174.254.192.246 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here, albeit weak, that GNG is met. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Marina Torlonia di Civitella-Cesi

Marina Torlonia di Civitella-Cesi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not inherited. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Comment - if the sources can be verified, her wedding, socialite activities, and death were in the New York Times, which would go far in proving her notability. Can anyone with access to their archives help? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• But they are all about other people fundamentally, not about her. Rathfelder (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• I updated the sources, there are at least three (or more) in the New York Times that were specifically about the subject of the article. She used many different names, including three different last names and a few variations of her first name. Jooojay (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I wanted to add, on newspapers.com (which is subscription-based) when searching one of her many name variations, there was more than 140+ results of newspaper articles. Jooojay (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete here coverage was because she was related to notable people, it in no way shows she herself was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep – many of the New York Times articles are about her specifically (like her obituary, multiple marriages and other life events) and passes GNG. Some confusion might be her slight name variations - Donna vs. Donna Marina vs. Marina. Her obituary was on page 3 of the New York Times. Jooojay (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG, Thanks to Jooojay for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, notable socialites have done more in society and made a larger impact than this, for instance contributed in charity etc. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Notability of an individual is determined by being subject of coverage in reliable sources rather than what they had done in their lifetimes and this person definitely pass WP:GNG on the sources provided in the articles alone. StellarHalo (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• It has to be significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is some of significant coverage in news: , , , , and you can find more in the WP article. Jooojay (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Keep The sources listed by Jooojay above already show that WP:GNG is amply met. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

East Washington Academy

East Washington Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Two sources in article are not IS RS for establishing notability, the other two sources are mill coverage of a name change. Looks like this is a wonderful school, but it does not have SIGCOV for N.   // Timothy :: talk  01:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  01:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  01:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Muncie Central High School would be the best place to do a merge- but at the moment there is no content.ClemRutter (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete This is a non-notable elementary school. Elementary schools are almost always not notable, and this is about the furthest from being notable article I have ever seen on an elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have said reidrect to Muncie Community Schools Corp., but the district has no article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable primary school. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Minneapolis City SC. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Stegman's Soccer Club

Stegman's Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable amateur soccer club. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Google and News search only turned up two short mentions. First was a few sentences in an article about Minneapolis City SC. [42]. Second only mentions name because Minneapolis City SC played under the name for unknown reasons. [43] Some content could be merged to Minneapolis City SC. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Minnesota Amateur Soccer League as possible search term - or delete. Either way not notable for a separate article. GiantSnowman 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I dont think a redirect to MASL is the way to go. Minneapolis SC is a much better choice. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge a sentence or two at most to Minneapolis City SC due to their affiliation. StarM 00:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like merge is the best outcome but no real agreement yet on a clear target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Minneapolis City SC. It's clear from significant sources like this, that Minneapolis City grew out of Stegman's. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge - selectively, to Minneapolis City SC. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Anmol India Limited

Anmol India Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP (WP:ORGCRIT). The subject lacks multiple WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond routine, mill coverage, database entries and statistics.   // Timothy :: talk  01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Wholly promotional article. Terribly fails WP:NCORP. No independent sources to confirm subject's nobility. Citations simply comprise balance sheets and stock market listing. RationalPuff (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added one external link that enforces subject's notability. Following changes also have been made: 1. Removal of inappropriate external links 2. Edited content to remove any kind of promotional sounding content.

Added https://indianeconomyandmarket.com/2019/02/06/anmol-india-ltd/

Please take a moment to review my edit.Jayati Goel (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayati Goel (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Team Wikipedia,

I have made few edits & added the Anmol India Google App Details to the Page. I have tried to improve the article to address concerns WP:IS WP:RS WP:NCORP

External Link: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.anmolindialtd.anmolindialimited&hl=en&gl=US

Please take a moment to review my changes.Jayati Goel (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I’ve found no significant coverage.POLITANVM ^talk 06:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Team Added Coal Mantra https://www.coalmantra.com/index.php. Please review --Jayati Goel×− (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Jayati Goel: You are adding irrelevant links without understanding how nobility WP:NCORP is established. This particular article has no encyclopedic value and should not be on Wikipedia. Also if you are undertakings paid editing or have conflicts of interests with the subject you must disclose it, if not, you are violating Wikipedia policies. RationalPuff (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC

@RationalPuff: Dear Wikipedian,

I being the creater of the page was asked to rewrite it to be more encyclopedic. I am sorry if I voilated any Wikipedia policy in trying to do that. Please understand Doing and Failing is an important part of learning. Neither am I a paid editor not do I have any personal conflict of interest. You are well within your rights to report but if you do it in a more polite and respectful manner rather than criticizing, it would be so much help to new editors. Best Regards --Jayati Goel×− (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - NCORP is quite a high standard, to be fair, but this just does not pass. Sorry. Spiderone 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Jagdish Rai Singh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jagdish Rai Singh
• Articles for deletion/Jagdish Rai Singh (2nd nomination)

Jagdish Rai Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references confer author notability, and Google only pulled up links to buy his books. The only reference (nightsandweekends) on the page is a user-generated review website. No reliable secondary sources for his name, or any of the book titles. The previous AFD was kept: the logic that "it's hard for authors to get reviews" is completely opposite of current policy. Specifically, I searched the top 3 Guyanese news sites (Stabroek, Kaieteur, and Guyana Times) for the name, and nothing came up, and Guyanese news sources are VERY quick to pick up on anyone demonstrating success in their field, especially abroad. The language of the article probably speaks for itself. Estheim (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete there is a lack of references that rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - searches turned up zero in-depth references from independent, secondary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wakefield AFC

Wakefield AFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recreated after PROD with rationale "non-notable club, has never competed at levels 1-10 or in an FA competition". Appears to be Too Soon for an article on this team. I can't access this The Athletic article which may be substantial coverage; everything else I find is press releases or local WP:MILL coverage like [44]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep The Athletic article is definitely WP:SIGCOV (I have access) and other mentions such as [45] [46] [47]* show this gets far more coverage than your average non-league step 7 team. (*-possibly not WP:GNG-qualifying) SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by SF. Article will need to be moved to Wakefield A.F.C. in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have moved it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, never played above Step 7 or in an FA competition. One Athletic article can't be good enough; otherwise you open up the door for articles on dozens of grassroots clubs who have been featured in a magazine article. Kivo (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• If the Athletic were the only GNG-qualifying source, I would not be !voting keep. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep - looks to just about get over that GNG line Spiderone 16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I wonder if this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Clearly an ambitious club who could start climbing the pyramid, but is that enough to justify an article or should we wait to see if they achieve anything on the field of play? For now could they be adequately covered in the main Wakefield article? Dunarc (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - meets GNG with Athletic article and other mentions, such as from BBC, Yorkshire Post. Not to mention lots of local coverage in the Wakefield Express. Nfitz (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - they certainly do have more coverage than most in their tier, but each source used to meet GNG needs to meet SigCov. Outside of the Athletic source, they likely wouldn't meet that, and then lots of the content is direct quotes. One more high quality article would likely do it. I'm happy to userfy etc as desired. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete To be excused the usual standards of having played at step 6 or in FA competitions, I'd expect to see notability established over a longer time period like Wallsend Boys Club. Also, the claim that Wakefield is the largest city without a professional football team is untrue, as Chelmsford is larger (I assume they've made the mistake of looking at the population of the district of Wakefield rather than the city itself). Number 57 16:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to scrape over GNG per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG, so specific guidelines for clubs are irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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