Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 30	January 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus achieved, some sources presented that would seem to indicate potential GNG, but there seemed little appetite to discuss them and the week extention led to no further comments. Not against renomination at a future date but I don't think we're going to resolve things one way or the other here. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 CSA Steaua București (football) season[edit]

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

This was article was prodded but was considered "objection to deletion" by the author with the full talk page noted here. What I am saying here is the fact that the article fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I am also nominating this article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To put it short, it's arguably the biggest football team in Romania. Every season should be documented. Also, the 2020-21 season is being played in a professional league. My full reasoning can be found on the talk page, where I addressed every complaint. Dante4786 (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Liga III is fully professional then please start a discussion at WT:FPL Spiderone 21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about believing. It's a fact. Sorry, but WikiProject is a bit out of my comfort zone. I never wrote there, I don't know how and at the moment I'm a little preoccupied with my articles getting erased. Maybe try Category:Professional sports leagues in Romania or: Romanian football league system. "The first three leagues are organized at a national level and consist of fully professional teams" - this is true. Dante4786 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That statement about being fully professional is unfortunately unsourced. Spiderone 09:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the team is fully-professional or not (and it surely is), doesn't matter - it's a red herring. WP:NSEASONS only requires that the league is professional, not fully-professional ~~, and it's been met. There's no end if media coverage for this season, so GNG is met as well.~~ Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liga IV is professional now is it? Spiderone 21:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, for some reason I saw II not IV. Gosh, was I googling the wrong Bucharest team as well? Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we've all done it! Spiderone 10:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Rangers F.C. season is about a comparable article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental difference is that GNG was clearly demonstrated by multiple sources showing significant coverage of that particular season, in spite of the fact that they were playing in a semi-pro league. More comparable AfDs would be 2009–10 AFC Wimbledon season, 2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season and 2019–20 FC Universitatea Cluj season; a club having a rich history does not make all of its seasons default notable. Spiderone 21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of sources you want. From what I have seen, pages on football seasons don't have sources after every match. Also, saying Universitatea Cluj is like Steaua is a bad comparison. Steaua (like Rangers) is the team with the most national titles. Comparing Cluj to Steaua is like comparing Sampdoria to Juventus. Dante4786 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sources to meet GNG. If any can be find then please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below. Dante4786 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - unlike the Rangers article mentioned above, these two seasons evidently fail WP:GNG and should either be deleted or redirected to CSA Steaua București as per guidance at WP:NSEASONS. Yes, they won the European Cup in 1986 but we're not talking about the notability of the 1985-86 season are we? If sources can be found, discussing the events of either of these seasons in significant detail, then I will be happy to change my vote. At the moment both articles are redundant WP:CONTENTFORK articles. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive stats directory nor a football almanac Spiderone 21:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If sources can be found" - how many do you want? Here is a source after the first game (from the previous season. Date: 24 august 2019): https://ziare.com/steaua/stiri-steaua/csa-steaua-invinge-rivala-rapid-la-debutul-ligii-4-intr-un-meci-in-care-a-marcat-de-noua-ori-1574739. To save time, let's skip a few weeks. Here is another source (https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-4/csa-steaua-rapid-fng-10-0-video-ros-albastrii-au-facut-spectacol-incidente-cu-ultrasii-in-prim-plan-579909.html), about a new game, this time from 12 october 2019. Another source (february 2020): https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/steaua-a-facut-o-praf-pe-dinamo-echipa-lui-daniel-oprita-a-castigat-cu-9-1-derby-ul-din-liga-4-video-18991588. Here are 2 articles about transfers and the upcoming playoff, from june 2020: https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/liga-3/csa-steaua-face-transferuri-de-liga-1-doi-fotbalisti-apropiati-de-ai-lui-oprita-au-fost-antamati-si-vor-ajuta-la-promovare-exclusiv-19035913 and https://liga2.prosport.ro/seria-1/steaua-isi-ia-doi-jucatori-din-liga-2-pentru-a-nu-avea-emotii-sa-devina-campioana-in-liga-4-si-sa-promoveze-in-liga-3-oprita-isi-aduce-inca-doi-fosti-elevi-de-la-juventus-19134508. Here is a source from Eurosport (august 2020), about how fans arrived at the stadion, despite the quarantine: https://www.eurosport.ro/fotbal/csa-steaua-baraj-liga-3_sto7822825/story.shtml. Another source, after the first game from the playoff: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/steaua-la-o-singura-victorie-de-promovarea-in-liga-3-baraganul-ciulnita-ultima-adversara-a-echipei-lui-oprita-883674. Here is a source from 8 september 2020, about the new kit, the transfers and the new season in general: https://liga2.prosport.ro/liga-3/foto-steaua-si-a-prezentat-echipamentul-de-joc-pentru-liga-3-19146997. Here is a source from 22 september 2020, after the team got eliminated in the cup: https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/cupa-romaniei/csa-steaua-eliminata-din-cupa-romaniei-ros-albastrii-pierd-dramatic-cu-popesti-leordeni-610924.html. And these are just a few. There are plenty more. Dante4786 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be WP:ROUTINE coverage - match reports etc. It is not the significant coverage of the topic required by GNG. Giant Snowman 08:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what type of coverage do you want. Literature and gossip? We're talking about sports, this is the type of coverage we get even for 1st division teams. And the same type of coverage that Rangers was having. If it was ok then, it should be ok now. Dante4786 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect anything from the Wikiproject Football members apart from a repetition of the long-discredited "fully professional league" mantra and an insistence that English and Scottish football are notable but football elsewhere is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks, dude. This team is literally an icon for Romania (alongside Dracula, Dacia, Nadia or Hagi). Saying this team is not notable is an insult to football from Eastern Europe. Dante4786 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I originally agreed with the OP here, and that it should be seen as a similar situation to Rangers, but then noticed they'd been stuck down there for quite some time. They don't really seem to be a notable team any more due to being stuck in the lower tiers.Muur (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Muur (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it IS similar to Rangers. Steaua failed to promote twice. Rangers failed to promote once. Steaua is literally one of the few teams from Romania that manages to bring fans to the stadium (before the covid pandemic). It achieved a national record for stadium attendance in the 4th (FOURTH!) division. Next year, they are set to play on a new stadium (over 30.000 seating capacity). Steaua, in the 3rd league, gets more media coverage than most teams from the first romanian division. Dante4786 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haven't all the sports deletionists been screaming for years about how the GNG should supersede the SNG? It works both ways. This article clearly meets GNG even if it fails NSEASONS, and so should be kept. I agree the Rangers article is a good analogy. Smartyllama (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be some sourcing provided that could go beyond routine match reporting. Further discussion necessary to explore this and get a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Texas Civil War Confederate units#Misc. I relisted it at first, but I found out that the consensus is to redirect the article, so I'm closing this properly. (non-admin closure) Mario Jump 83! 10:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panna Maria Grays[edit]

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

per my searches and discussion on talk, seems to fail GNG and WP:MILUNIT. Not seeing anything worth keeping or meeting notability here. Clear coi creation (user:SilesiaUSA, article claims to mostly consist of silesians) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Texas Civil War Confederate units#Misc although I wouldn't be sad to see it deleted. I was part of the talk page discussion, and the only source giving significant attention to this I could find is an obscure college thesis that doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Claim of mostly Silesians is dubious and contradictory to statements I found in some RS suggesting only 4 known Poles. Too small to meet MILUNIT. With no inline citations and disputable content, merging anything is not appropriate. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as above, as much as this is interesting, doesn't seem to be much on this unit, and no RS for the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Agree with above, this is interesting, Polish Texans in Civil War Confederate Units. Nonetheless, no RS so merge. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Benjamin (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Downs (writer)[edit]

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

Poorly structured autobio which fails to establish notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reviews are mostly to dead links, but their existence suggests he meets WP:NAUTHOR. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only plausible criterion he meets in WP:NAUTHOR is 4(c): "The person's work [...] won significant critical attention", but for how borderline uselessly vague it is, it is still a criterion. However, whereas I think the notabillity of the subject can be debated, deleting the article and starting from scratch is the best thing to do in this case, for reasons I'll address below.

Delete (changed to 'Keep'; see below) – Even if we assume the subject passes notability criteria (I think it's ambiguous; see above), the article would need to be remade from scratch due to a number of issues I addressed over on the the COI noticeboard. The gist of it is: borderline WP:G11-worthy (see: WP:IBA) content clearly written by the subject himself; poor reference formatting with no inline citations (have fun sorting that out); and terrible prose structure. The relatively short article is so far below the project's quality standards that bringing it up to them would probably take more time than rewriting it from scratch while utilizing the existing references (and more, if you can find them; I couldn't from a cursory search). Essentially, the article in its current form just isn't fit for Wikipedia, and there's no good quick fix, because the issues are foundational to the article itself. I have no qualms with keeping this article in my sandbox to help a future editor in creating a new article, but unless some Good Samaritan is willing to sit down and rewrite this into something passable, my vote is a clear delete, as having such a blatant, COI-ridden advertisement here is far more detrimental to the project than it is helpful. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ya got me. I hope most Wikipedians would rather be the good Samaritan than the first two guys who didn't care or the victim of violence. Rewriting such a short article as this is easy as pie. Do research, cite sources, delete the fluff. Why throw a baby out with the bathwater? And cursory searches? As in Googling? Noooo. I'll start tomorrow with paywalled sources. It'll be apparent whether a Flannery O'Connor award-winner is notable after a little bit of work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are your objections to the article in its current state, TheTechnician27 and Orangemike? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so fundamentally different than the one that I voted on that I retract my vote and change it to 'Keep'. The only thing I could really suggest at a glance is changing the date format from YMD to MDY per MOS:DATETIES, and I say that to contrast this minor nitpick with the litany of fundamental issues the article had three days ago. You kept the baby, threw out the old, grimy bathwater, and installed a drop-in jacuzzi in place of the old tub. Hats off. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DiamondRemley39 notes, fixing an article like this is not a task that requires a total reset. It seems a stretch to say the article includes no usable content at all; see WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:DINC. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he sure meets WP:NAUTHOR. Just getting started with improvements--all of which have been available on the open internet so far. WP:BEFORE could have been stronger. Also: AfD is not cleanup. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears to be adequate, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The problem, I think, is with the article and what it says, rather than his notability. Possibly (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of his books (thanks DiamondRemley39 for article improvements), btw one place i go for authors is WorldCat, if their books are in 3digit+ libraries it may be an indication that they're probably "well-known" with reviews out there, ie. Split Baths: 300 libraries, After Appomattox: over 1000, occasionally reviews are also listed (Woohoo!:)) - Split Baths 4 reviews, After Appomattox 4 reviews, then more digging can occur. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR - seems to be a legit author, with valid published titles, and evidence of reviews on the page, including an award one for a short article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluhr, California[edit]

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

References are too thin for claim of unincorporated community. On the map this is in the outskirts of Atwater, California. Geschichte (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Possibly where the siding to the AFB originates. But definitely not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed, more than likely site for the siding to the Air Force Base. (The siding is still there, connected to the main line.) --Whiteguru (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samantina Zenon[edit]

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

Non notable actor who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus Subject of article fails to satisfy WP:GNG. She appears to be an actress who doesn’t satisfy any from WP:NACTOR as she has failed to feature in movies in a significant role and has not won a notable award. A before search reveals hits in unreliable self published sources and other sources without editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clearly non-notable actress. There seems to be no evidence that she has ever been in a notable production, let alone had multiple significant roles in such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero notable roles, zero accolades, not much coverage Spiderone 22:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. It appears her roles have mostly been Redshirt (stock character) types, as in, "she played a supporting role in the Sci-Fi film The Face in The Wall." Her role at Columbia University might have been major, but it's unclear. Please ping me if you find anything new. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major roles to pass WP:NACTOR and lacks coverage to pass WP:GNG. Probably WP:TOOSOON case. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Army Times. Sandstein 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PVT Murphy's Law[edit]

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

Not seeing the sort of coverage necessary to establish GNG. Best coverage is a passing mention and an article published in Soldiers, a trade journal, titled "PVT Murphy joins the Army", not enough imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Army Times, the publication the strip appeared in, as it allows for searching, avoids recreation-due-to-redlink, and redirects are cheap. Please remember there are alternatives to deletion that can be done prior to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger it's not a clear redirect target as it's not mentioned at the target article and I see no reason why it should be. I'm more than capable of instituting bold redirects when they are actually merited. Adding a mention there will lend undue weight to a non-notable comic strip. If it's redirected without a mention, it will be deleted at RFD, more likely than not. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a mention there will lend undue weight to a non-notable comic strip. Saying "the magazine was known for publishing [strip]" is not undue weight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no indication that the magazine was known for publishing it, just that it did publish it. If we listed every non-notable column that every paper published, articles on papers would become crufty, long, unwieldy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently there are no sources provided other than an archived version of this comic strip's official site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Army Times or a new article addressing military comic strips (like Terminal Lance). In its day PVT Murphy's Law was a well known comic strip in the Army Times which ran for years. It'd be odd for wikipedia not to mention this cultural phenomenon just because it was restricted to the military. Plenty of other comic strips (The Family Circus, etc.) get their own entries. That being said, there isn't much to say about it. So I think it should either be folded into a sub-section of the Army Times (the paper it appeared in for years) or we need a US military comic strip entry to handle both PVT Murphy's Law and Terminal Lance and whatever other comics might come in the future or be being overlooked now. Atfyfe (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've yet to see any sources indicating that it actually was a "well known comic strip". Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Army Times As per above. Setreis (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the specified target. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Army Times - needs more RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Albeit some of the arguments were a tad unsubstantial. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowag Tornado infantry fighting vehicle[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Never in service, only prototypes. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Never in service, only prototypes" is not a valid reason for deletion. Are there additional sources available? they only need to exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Never in service, only prototypes" is not how notability works.Nüedi (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm leaning to keep. This vehicle was designed by Mowag, and a prototype was built, and there are sources to indicate this and photos of the vehicle. As mentioned, simply because "it didn't enter service" doesn't qualify as a reason to delete the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I detest scant notability, I also agree, this one is notable per se, and 'never in service' is not a reason for deletion. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdpanzer MOWAG Cheetah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one prototype built. The Banner talk 22:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only one built, fails GNG" is not how notability works. There's barely enough sourcing, but there is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Passes WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When we are already here though: move it and lose the CAPS. Geschichte (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "MOWAG" is the proper format of the name. The fact the article on the company is Mowag is frankly WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Only one built, fails GNG" is not how notability works. Nüedi (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. It's mentioned there, so... Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Durrell Museum[edit]

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

Not a notable museum or relevant on a provincial or national scale.--UserNL2020 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge with Durrell. As a potential tourist attraction, it should not be deleted completely. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge, not a plausible search term, and it's already mentioned in Durrell, Newfoundland and Labrador. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above, Absolutely nothing to merge, not a plausible search term, and it's already mentioned in Durrell, Newfoundland and Labrador. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jugville, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick calls it a locale (geography) in his index, but his Grayson County directory doesn't mention it. Neither is it in his Place Names beginning with the letter J. Topos show a very small cluster of buildings. Newspapers.com brings up 7 hits for Jugville in Kentucky papers: three references to a Jugville Road, one scanner error, one passing mention, and two references to the Jugville community in Caneyville There's nothing to merge to the Caneyville article (content is one sentence sourced to GNIS, which has issues, and one sentence of vandalism). No evidence this was ever legally recognized, so WP:GEOLAND is not met, neither is WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was discombobulated trying to find it on map sites; I can't find a community nor a Jugville Road. The article is to bare to warrant keeping. As per nom, fails WP:GEOLAND --Whiteguru (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mario Jump 83! 09:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Telangana[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BRANCH, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were recent similar discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Rajasthan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal and result were KEEP in all of these. Furthermore, BJP received 3.6 million votes (19% of total votes) in Telangana in the last Lok Sabha election.^[1]^[2] Also the recently concluded Dubbaka bypoll and GHMC election, the BJP state unit got major media coverage nationally.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 05:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "BJP takes Telangana by storm, gets 19.45% vote share - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ Geetanath, V. (2019-05-23). "Double delight for BJP in Telangana". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ "Is BJP's By-Poll Win in Telangana's Dubbak a Political Game-Changer?". The Wire. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ Ramakrishnan, Sriram. "TRS' missteps, the BJP's rise: How southern politics is going to change forever". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ P, Ashish (19 November 2020). "Post Dubbaka win, BJP goes all out to expand base in Telangana ahead of GHMC polls". India Today. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ Dutta, Prabhash K. (1 December 2020). "Hyderabad civic polls: Why BJP made local election as its big launchpad in Telangana". India Today. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ Sadam, Rishika (2020-11-18). "Buoyed by Dubbaka bypoll win, BJP looks for bigger role in Telangana". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ "OPINION: Greater Hyderabad municipal polls and the rise of communal politics". The Week. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ "BJP hopes to make Telangana inroads with Hyderabad polls, but TRS confident 'divisive agenda' won't work". The Indian Express. 2020-11-30. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ "BJP's relentless rise, Congress's continued fall". Deccan Herald. 2020-11-13. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
^ "After Telangana bypoll win, BJP turns challenger to its catalyst, TRS". The Week. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

While looking at those discussions, I found all of them weren't kept. Besides that, the number of votes or seats doesn't make the subject pass WP:BRANCH or WP:ORG. The Telangana unit of Bharatiya Janata Party almost has no presence in the state legislative assembly or state legislative council. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, "almost has no" doesn't mean none. And the state unit won 4 out of 17 Lok Sabha seats in 2019 (compared to 9 and 3 of TRS and INC). Secondly, the state unit got substantial media coverage nationally which itself is enough to pass WP:GNG. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 07:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it passes WP:BRANCH. There is significant national coverage in India. This is also a topic of value to people outside India, because it can hold detail not appropriate to a national article on the BJP. It needs to be remembered that Telangana is significantly different from other parts of modern India, being part of a formerly independent state annexed by India in 1948, and where there was a long-running insurgency war directed against the Indian armed forces after annexation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a separate state party but a geographical wing of Bharatiya Janata Party and clearly WP:BRANCH should be applicable and the article does not pass its criteria to merit a standalone article. Most sources are passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage of political events.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Have you read those articles I just mentioned above? Those are editorial articles and not WP:ROUTINE. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 07:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to read the policies you cite. WP:BRANCH says that individual chapters of national and international organisations can be notable if "they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area", which is the case here. That is why it is significant that coverage is at national level.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Muay Thai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ~~in current state.~~ Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edited nomination reason as I incorrectly stated ”in current state”. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Run-of-the-mill martial arts training facility. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are these sources[1][2][3], currently cited in the article, not reliable third-party coverage? In any case, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, so "Fails WP:GNG in current state" isn't a valid reason for deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul 012, yes you are correct... let me update my nomination reason. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the aforementioned sources, has been covered by AFP[4], and mentioned as one of the more prominent facilities in coverage of Muay Thai gyms in Phuket by Nikkei Asia[5] and Financial Times[6]. Should satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per User:Paul 012. VocalIndia (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some of the articles appear to be more about learning Muay Thai than this gym in particular, but I think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mario Jump 83! 09:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McCrank[edit]

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

Article which was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank, then draftified, scrubbed for copyvio and then immediately moved back into mainspace without a proper WP:AFC review. But copyvio isn't the grounds on which it was originally deleted: it was deleted for lacking reliable source support for his notability, and that issue hasn't been addressed at all. The sourcing here is still virtually identical to what wasn't acceptable the first time, as it's still referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, YouTube videos, glancing namechecks of his existence in television listings, and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person. There still isn't a single reference here that represents reliable journalistic attention from a source that's intellectually independent of his own voice. As always, the notability test is not passed by the things the article says he did, it's passed by the quality of the references that can be shown to support the things the article says -- and the references here still aren't cutting it any better than they did in October. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT, as I can only find one somewhat reliable and independent source on McCrank, and it is not even cited in this article. Some of the references are dead and some are unreliable and extremely short, and the quality of them is quite dreadful. Coreykai (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree. Please go through the sources and compare to the previous version. I worked to add reliable sources. I also improved the copy. The last discussion was ended and the article deleted before meaningful conversation could be had. Please do not rush to delete this article. I'm going to review it again to see if there are additional changes and sources I could add. Rick McCrank is undoubtedly notable in skateboarding, somewhat like Scottie Pippin is to basketball. --Wil540 art (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Coreykai and Bearcat, I added some more strong sources:
  - https://www.pushingboarders.com/speakers-2019 - Please read McCrank's bio from a speaking engagement in 2019 at Pushing Boarders].
  - http://www.xgames.com/athletes/3014120/rick-mccrank - XGames aka ESPN profile.
  - https://theberrics.com/rick-mccrank-leaves-lakai-after-7-years - News about him leaving his company, this is similar to a basketball player being traded.
  - https://skatenewswire.com/mission-statement-rick-mccrank/ - Article on McCrank from independent skate publication
- I believe Rick McCrank passes the general notability guideline. Sincerely, Wil540 art (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, those don't cut it. "Staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, such as his "bio from a speaking engagement", are not notability-supporting sources, so "Pushing Boarders" isn't helping. Directory entries aren't notability-supporting sources, so "XGames aka ESPN profile" isn't helping. Corporate blogs aren't notability-supporting sources, so "The Berrics" isn't helping. WordPress blogs aren't notability-supporting sources, so "Skate News Wire" isn't helping.

The thing you need to understand is that notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of the things a person does, it's a question of how much attention is or isn't being independently paid to the things he does by real media. People can and do make inflated claims about their importance in their self-published content about themselves, for example, so the things people claim about themselves in their own PR don't make them notable — notability requires the facts to be independently verified as accurate by media outlets that don't have a vested interest in the subject's career. So notability isn't established by just any webpage you can find that has his name in it: it isn't built on YouTube videos, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations that have direct business relationships with him, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, directory entries, or blogs of any stripe. It's built on third party, third person journalism, in real established media of record and real books, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree on your descriptions of my sources. I think you hold anti-skateboarding bias, which honestly is not uncommon and I don't judge you for it, I just think you don't understand how notability works in skateboarding. I've added 4 more sources, books with ISBN numbers, to the article. The thing you need to understand is that Rick McCrank is notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wil540 art! I agree with Bearcat, sorry. One of the sources is a short summary of an Instagram post, one is a profile saying nothing of him and from an unreliable source, and the other is a clearly self-written biography. The only one that is possibly useable is the last one, which is still questionable as it is clear that McCrank participated in the creation of the article, and it is a lot of fluff. Even if this was useable, it would be the one singular source for this article, and it is a press release which is not considered independent according to WP:GNG. I'm really sorry, but I disagree. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and anyone with a skateboard and some money to pay someone to write a press release about them, could do this. I understand that notability works different with skateboarding, which is exactly why you don't see a lot of skateboarders with their own Wikipedia article. Coreykai (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coreykai did you have a chance to look at the four book citations I added to the article? --Wil540 art (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wil540 art! I did actually look at them, and they are honestly your best argument yet. But the article is over-sourced now and unfortunately, my opinion still has not changed. If we have already gotten thus far, we need to speak more generally. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is hard to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia. He does have some notability, but it seems to all come from his one documentary, Abandoned. On top of it, all your new additions of the book sources have just passing mentions of him, which wouldn't be a problem if the article already had a steady foundation of references, but it does not. You cannot base of an entire encyclopedic article off of a few books with passing mentions of the subject. Also, please consider removing the dead or unreliable references the next time you ask us to review your new references :) Coreykai (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coreykai, I shouldn't need to ask you to review the references. If you aren't reviewing the references, you shouldn't be commenting on Articles for deletion. That said, I will look through and see if there is any clean-up I can do. "it is hard to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia" - this is argument also makes no sense. It seems both CoreyKai and Bearcat hold anti-skateboarding bias. Can we get some other opinions in here? --Wil540 art (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wil540 art, I tried staying calm with you and I still will, please try and do the same. First of all, I do not have an anti-skateboarding mindset. It is not that I do not like skateboarders, it is just harder to get a Wikipedia page as one. Second of all, we have already presented you with a multitude of arguments, and my comment about it being hard for me to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia was just me trying to help you understand the logic and sense behind our arguments. Lastly, there are literal dead references and blatantly unreliable references, in this article. I simply asked you to delete these the next time you ask us to review your new ones so we don't have to go through all of the useless ones when looking for your new references. I did not appreciate the subtle attack, and this will probably be the last time I address this discussion. I also hope you realize Bearcat is an administrator, so there is little point in arguing this when an admin has already provided such proper arguments for the deletion of this article. Coreykai (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any "anti-skateboarding bias", and your claim that I do is (a) absurd, and (b) unsupported by any evidence. This isn't a question of "how notability works in skateboarding" — it's a question of how notability works in Wikipedia, namely that it has to be supported by a certain specific type and class and volume of reliable source coverage in real media and books. There is no notability claim, in any human occupation, that entitles an article about the person to rest on bad, unreliable sources that aren't legitimate support for Wikipedia notability instead of reliable sources that count toward WP:GNG, and there's no human occupation where the fans get to independently make up their own special occupation-specific exemptions from Wikipedia's standard inclusion and sourceability rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree Bearcat. Your use and understanding of "unaffiliated media", "directly affiliated organizations", and "Corporate blogs" in skateboarding shows clear anti-skateboarding bias. Yes, there is such thing as reliable independent skateboard media. Not all skate entities are affiliated, to imply otherwise is biased and frankly incorrect. The article contains good reliable sources including: Vancouver Sun, SBS television network, Transworld SKATEboarding, Thrasher magazine, ESPN, Jenkem Magazine, Viceland, and multiple books. What more do you want? --Wil540 art (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can respectfully disagree all you like, but it doesn't make me incorrect about how notability works in Wikipedia. A "staff" profile on the self-published website of a person's own employer is not a notability-building source, "coverage" on the self-published websites of commercial companies with whom the subject has a direct sponsorship deal are not notability-building sources, speaker profiles on the self-published websites of conferences or events that he's spoken at are not notability-supporting sources, blogs are not notability-supporting sources, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person instead of being written about in the third person are not notability-supporting sources, directory entries are not notability-supporting sources, sources which briefly mention the subject's name in the process of not being about him are not support for notability, content on user-generated social networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or YouTube is not notability-supporting sourcing, and on and so forth. This doesn't work differently in skateboarding than it does in hockey, football, music, television, film, politics or science: there are certain types of sources that are valid support for notability and certain types of sources that are not valid support for notability, and the fact that an article subject happens to be a skateboarder does not mean you get any special skateboarding-specific dispensation to rest on the bad kind of sourcing instead of the good kind.

So let's review: Vancouver Sun, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. SBS, namechecks his existence but is not about him in any non-trivial sense. Transworld, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. Thrasher, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. ESPN, directory entry. Jenkem, mentions his name but is not about him. The Viceland sources are not coverage about him, but simply their "our programs" directory of their own shows.

A person is not notable for hosting a TV show just because you can reference the fact to the show's own self-published page on the website of the network that airs it — to make a person notable for hosting a TV show, journalists have to write third party, third person news articles about his hosting of a TV show in newspapers or magazines. A person is not notable for winning an award or a medal just because you can reference the fact to the awarding organization's own directory of its own winners — to make a person notable for winning an award, journalists have to write third party, third person articles which treat "Rick McCrank wins award/prize/medal" as a news story. And on and so forth. Notability always works the same way, no matter what domain you're trying to demonstrate that a person is notable in: it's not the things you say, it's the amount of reliable source third party coverage about him in real media that can or can't be shown to support the things you say. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rick McCrank is one of the most globally well-known and successful skateboarders of the last 30 years. He has featured prominently and consistently in skateboard print media over the last three decades. I can understand why those unfamiliar with skateboarding sources might question whether Thrasher, Transworld Skateboarding etc. are “real media.” However, they are just as reliable as any other high-circulation sporting or art-cultural magazine. They typically combine ‘factual journalism’ (the reporting of skateboard contexts, industry news, interviews etc.) alongside opinion pieces—just as Sports Illustrated, Slam, or 4-4-2 do. A professional journalist for Thrasher is just as much a valid subject expert as a professional journalist for one of these more ‘mainstream’ sporting publications. However, there are also plenty of traditional ‘factual’ journalistic sources about Rick McCrank. I searched for "rick mccrank" on the (subscription-only) LexisNexis news database. My search came up with 138 separate regional and national newspaper articles mentioning him from 2000-2016. Some are syndicated (i.e. duplicates) or TV listings, but many aren’t—and they talk about him a lot. This is undoubtedly real media. Reading the discussion here, it seems clear that Wikipedia has a blind spot when it comes to skateboarding topics—probably because skateboarding is such a closed subculture to the uninitiated. And I get that. --Eklektikos (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few additional mainstream sources that might help support notability at this time. One might also consider that presence in a publication like Thrasher that is well-known not just to the skater community helps make the case. If in time, this doesn't hold up it could be revisited then.
- McCrank, Rick. “Riding a Rail with Rick McCrank.(Features/Tips From The Pros).” Sports illustrated for kids 13.9 (2001): 84–. Print.
- Burnett, Michael. “Rick McCrank.” Thrasher (San Francisco, Calif.) 400 (2013): 160–. Print.
- Burnett, Michael. "Rick McCrank." Thrasher, no. 330, Mar. 2008, p. 150+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 18 Dec. 2020. (In this interview the skater mentions Wikipedia in a positive light.)
- Scott, Kevin. “It’s Not About Winning, Man, Skating Is Art: Toronto Edition.” National post (Toronto) 2 May 2003: n. pag. Print. (" Rick McCrank, the reigning supremo of Vancouver skaters") --Mozucat (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Wil540 art (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of stars in Aries. If there is content worth merging, it may be retrieved from the history Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 12846[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. No journal papers concerning this star or a small number of stars including this one, no significant popular coverage, not naked-eye, no historical notability. Lithopsian (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or merge into List of stars in Aries per nom. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Redirect to List of stars in Aries, though it's not currently listed there for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, its been done for other stars. Obviously not every star is in the list, but most potentially-notable ones are even if they're redlinks. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I updated the article. HD 12846 is considered by Turnbull and Tarter (2011) as one of the 25 habitable stars within 25 parsecs: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/379320/meta ExoEditor 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being a potential "HabStar" does not make it notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your comment. That's true. However, the star has the same apparent magnitude as 7 Aquilae (6.89): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Aquilae#:~:text=7%20Aquilae%20is%20a%20star,apparent%20visual%20magnitude%20of%206.9. which seems to be considered visible to the naked eye. I think that editor used this classification: http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html that mentions that magnitud 7 are the faintest naked-eye stars. I just included the information in the article. ExoEditor 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Wikipedia to have 11,000+, and in the future perhaps several orders of magnitude more, individual articles dedicated to each potential HabStar in the galaxy? Additionally, that Harvard list needs to be deprecated, as there is no way - NO WAY - the human eye can resolve/detect a magnitude 6.9 star without optical assistance, regardless of background darkness. See Magnitude (astronomy). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add here that the Turnbull and Tarter paper is 17 years old, their analysis was self-limited to sun-like stars, and a LOT has changed in the intervening years, to wit: almost every discoverer of an "interesting" exoplanet claims it is potentially habitable, regardless of the type of star it orbits (that, along with a beautiful artistic rendering, is how their institution's press release gets picked up by BBC, CNN, etc.). The prospect of many thousands of similar Wikipedia articles being produced by, let's call them HabStar enthusiasts, thus seems a legitimate concern. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's nearby, it's habitable, and it has been mentioned as such in published literature. There are very few stars that fulfill these criteria, a few dozen at most, so we're not at risk of getting thousands of articles on uninteresting subjects. While it might technically satisfy WP:NASTRO's criteria by being visible to the naked eye, it's really on the edge, so I wouldn't count that. Tercer (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any published papers that give it more than a cursory mention. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG. 17:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete None of the references in the article do anything other than list the star; there is no specific commentary about this particular star in any of them. I looked at the references returned by SIMBAD, and I didn't see any journal articles about this specific star. ADS also returns nothing. I know naked eye astronomical objects are supposed to be inherently notable, but without an explicitly specified magnitude cut-off, the rule isn't helpful for objects fainter than 6.0.PopePompus (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments (although I don't know what editor wrote the first comment since it isn't signed). I thought that WP:NASTRO criteria allowed for stand-alone articles if any of the 4 criteria are met. I would appreciate if the article isn't merged (I have spent quite some time searching information about it) ExoEditor 16:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest re-reading the full WP:NASTRO document. It only says an article is probably notable if it meets one of those criteria. That is primarily to help avoid the generation of articles that are likely non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstrated notability. Being listed in a catalog of potentially habitable star systems doesn't confer notability, especially if there are no known exoplanets orbiting the star. Aldebarium (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep Not necessarily notable, but I recommend merging or keeping. Kepler-1229b talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saco, California[edit]

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

Another siding/station which, after sitting alone, gradually begins to collect a strip of ag businesses on the south side before being reached by industrial Bakersfield from the southeast. Not a settlement, and not a notable rail point. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While Saco did not have a post office Jewetta did, see also [7]. Search Newspapers.com found very little for Saco, though searching for "Seco Station" and "Jewetta Station" came up with more hits. GBooks indicates that there was a railroad station at Seco. Looking at non-WP:RS railfan discussion sites, it looks like Saco might have been a junction between two railroads, that there was at one time a rail yard at Seco that loaded oil cars, and that the railyard had been dismantled. I found very little coverage for Saco and Jewetta, all of it trivial. If it were not for the Jewetta post office, I would vote for delete. Please don't let my weak keep vote keep this article unless others agree that having a post office is sufficient legal recognition for #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A post office is not necessarily an indication of a community. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill rail station that also served for a time as a post office. Glendoremus (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti Kullafond[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN – I don't see anywhere where this series of albums is discussed as a group. This appears to be a series of compilation albums of Estonian music artists, none of which are individually notable (the albums, I mean, not the artists), they're just effectively "greatest hits" records. The only source is Discogs, which isn't an RS and only proves the albums exist, and although I don't speak Estonian, I can only find online record stores selling these albums, and nothing that resembles an RS. I would redirect to the record label Hitivabrik, but that's already been redirected itself. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (common sense). I agree that internationally not famous one, but massively referenced in Estonian-language mass media, like lasering.ee, erb.nlib.ee, rahvaraamat.ee. If deleted, then affected is also Eesti Kullafond: Singer Vinger--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Estopedist1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

We don't keep articles based on "common sense", and I'm not sure what common sense has to do with this anyway. We know the albums exist, but that doesn't make them notable – two of those links you gave are just online shops where you can buy the albums, and ERB is a a database listing of all Estonian works and publications. None of them say anything apart from "the records exist". We need reliable sources that talk about how this series of compilation albums in depth. And I agree that Eesti Kullafond: Singer Vinger should be redirected to Singer Vinger, although that article is unsourced as well. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Nothing significant found on google. The foreign language page also does not offer anything notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tend to agree with Estopedist. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Wikipedia criteria, though? Are we saying that all lists of albums are automatically notable, even if they have no sources discussing them as a list? Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage for a standalone article. Fails WP:NALBUM, HĐ (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems notable, but some of the sources/links that Estopedist1 listed should be added to the article aswell. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems notable" based on what, exactly? And I've already stated above that Estopedist1's links are nothing more than record stores where you can but the albums, they don't demonstrate notability at all. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, music-related press in Estonia is almost non-existant. Not all of the mentioned links are record stores though. Some links I found [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rowen, California[edit]

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

Yet another isolated passing siding/station. For whatever reason it doesn't show up as a name on the topos until quite late, but the siding is still there, and there's still noting around it. Not a notable location. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Rowen had a post office. Searching newspapers.com for "Rowen Kern", finds "town of Rowen, Kern county", "Rowen Station, Kern county". GBooks finds [13], which lists Rowen as a town. I found only trivial coverage for Rowen, the coverage does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. If it were not for the post office, I would vote delete. Please do not let my weak keep vote keep this article unless someone agrees with me that having a post office meets #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a post office assigned to an area confers legal recognition that that is an established area, and notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acarya Priyashivananda Avadhuta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO: the sources are passing mentions only, none of the sources are about him or discuss him in any detail, and I couldn't find better sources online. My search may well be missing e.g. better Bengal sources, so I'll happily withdraw this if such sources can be provided. Fram (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, current sources fails in showing WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burma Mines[edit]

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

No notability established, article completely devoid of any citations. WP:ARTN is certainly relevant here. Article fails WP:SIGCOV Prolix 💬 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be some degree of consensus that this article should not exist. The keep arguments tend to be based less in policies and guidelines than a general sense of what our coverage should be. There is some agreement that perhaps this should be reworked with a new name and different name. Ultimately a lack of participation, despite the very thoughtful participation of editors who did participate, prevent any sort of consensus from being found. No prejudice to a quicker than normal renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 301 (113th Congress)[edit]

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

Non-notable legislation that passed the U.S. House but not the Senate. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT because most news coverage was routine. I did find some articles covering this bill: [14][15][16][17], but none of those sources demonstrate enduring significance or depth of coverage. Edge3 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This bill (which would have established a special envoy to monitor religious freedom in the Middle East) was never enacted into law. Substantially the entire article was written when the bill was pending in Congress in 2013, and there have been minimal edits to the article after that. This article is basically an artifact of recentism that seems to have flown beneath the radar to remain undeleted for seven years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90:There's a lot more of these at Category:Proposed legislation of the 113th United States Congress, if you'd like to consider nominating some for deletion as well. At some point, there might need to be a sweep through the entirety of Category:United States proposed federal legislation just to ensure they're meeting notability standards. Edge3 (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may do so when I get a chance. I agree that some of that proposed legislation doesn't appear to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2014. The bill was indeed passed into [Public Law 113-161]. ref. It became law on 08/08/2014 when Obama signed it. This article written in 2015 after the bill became law is titled "Obama urged to name envoy for religious minorities" [by Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore]. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for the input. H.R. 301 doesn't seem to be the underlying bill for Public Law 113-161. Rather, it appears that the Public Law was introduced as S. 653. In any case, even though a law was eventually enacted, it still fails WP:NEVENT because the news coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate enduring significance. Edge3 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edge3 Can you take a look at some of the other Public Laws listed List_of_acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress#Public_laws here--a random sample of three would probably suffice--and tell me if the references appear to justify WP:GNG for the other statutes? I've looked at a number of federal statutes and they almost all have the same format and many lack much outside WP:RS. I have a feeling someone at the GPO is putting them up. I think most of them are not that different than this one, and I wanted to see if you agree. I think we should treat them all with about the same standard.

Right now, I lean toward keep as federal statutes are of such significance, as once they become law, they may be law for many years to come, that it seems that they are likely notable even if finding WP:RS is not easy.

The disadvantage of some of these more minor statutes is that it increases our burden of maintaining the articles.

My feeling is that we should look at the bigger picture of all of these rather than just this one. Possibly that conversation has already taken place elsewhere. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Tornheim, thanks for your input. I haven't had a chance to look at the Public Laws you've linked to, but I have already been looking at some similar articles. As I mentioned to Metropolitan90 above, I found a lot of potential candidates for deletion (or maybe merger) in Category:Proposed legislation of the 113th United States Congress. In fact, I'd say that the entirety of Category:United States proposed federal legislation would need to be discussed, but the 113th Congress seems to be the largest subcategory.

Based on some feedback I received from BD2412 during a de-PROD, I've withdrawn all my pending PRODs in this topic and will list them here, just to see if we can have a broader discussion on what to do for this topic. If it's not appropriate to discuss it on this page, I can open separate AfD discussions for the other articles.

H.R. 298 (113th Congress) - I tagged it for PROD, but it was de-PRODed by a different user, who suggested merging with another article.
Fourth Amendment Restoration Act - I tagged it for PROD, and just voluntarily de-PRODed so that we can have a more thorough discussion.
An act to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance - I tagged it for PROD, but it was de-PRODed by a different user.
An Act to amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands - I tagged it for PROD, and just voluntarily de-PRODed so that we can have a more thorough discussion.
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 and Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 - I did not PROD, but rather I've recommended merger with Agricultural Act of 2014.

As you can see, I initially felt that I could handle each of these articles by deciding to nominate for PROD, AFD, or propose merger on a case-by-case basis. However, this is quickly becoming unwieldy, as potentially hundreds of articles would be affected by the consensus we form.

I think that generally, it will be difficult to set standards for reviewing the notability of US Congressional bills, especially the ones that did not pass. However, we can potentially look to WP:GNG and WP:EVENT for guidance. WP:EVENTCRITERIA list several aspects that we could consider, including "lasting effects", "depth of coverage", "duration of coverage", and "diversity of sources". Because most bills appear to be getting only routine news coverage in sources such as The Hill or official Congressional sources, our ability to write thorough articles on each bill is limited. The administrative and maintenance burden on Wikipedia would be massive if we kept all of them as-is.

While I recognize the nationwide scope of these bills (satisfying WP:GEOSCOPE), I would argue that not every piece of Congressional legislation is notable. Notability is not inherited from Congress. We can also look at WP:OUTCOMES, which has previously addressed a related question regarding cases decided by the US Supreme Court. See WP:OUTCOMES#Legal cases and court decisions, stating "Decisions by [a supreme court] are not considered notable for this reason alone, because even high courts make many routine or unexceptional decisions." Similar logic can be applied to Congress. Edge3 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principal, I think the fact that Congress tried to legislate on a topic will often be significant to that topic. We can always merge individually non-notable efforts into a list of such efforts for a year, or merge them into the topic the bill was trying to address. BD2412 T 18:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Per what I write below. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: Thanks for looking into those. I agree that this is definitely not the place to discuss ALL of them, and that nothing determined here should apply to all of them. But I do think that the context is important.

I agree with BD2412.

Decisions by [a supreme court] are not considered notable for this reason alone. This is not an appropriate comparison. Unlike the handful of approved bills like this one, courts receive countless cases that get turned down in a trivial manner with probably no mention in any WP:RS. See [18]. Each of the ~300 in the table List_of_acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress#Public_laws appear more significant to me, and a number of them do not have articles.

Compare these bills with the fact that anyone who participated in the Olympics is entitled to an article per WP:NOLYMPICS and that person does not require any coverage. I think a bill that passed in either house or senate is way more significant than some teen who got into the Olympic one time and never did anything else notable in their life and received no coverage. According to Olympic_Games#21st-century_Games, there were >11,200 participants in 2016. I have tried to delete these articles, and get nowhere. So does each participant worth more than 37 times as much as a bill that was passed in the 113th Congress? I think not. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand per David Tornheim. Even if these are two separate bills, the first represents an effort to achieve what was accomplished in the second, and is therefore relevant to the history of the second. I would consider this a reasonable general practice for specific outcomes sought through multiple efforts in Congress. BD2412 T 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.L.I.N.D - Born to Live In Near Darkness (Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, did not show in any major film festivals or won any significant awards, does not have significant independent coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clearly a non-notable short film that doesn't warrant an entry in a general encyclopaedia Spiderone 21:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I tried to confirm a source and could not. Short films are a little common at the Cannes Film Festival. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian TV shows with Muslim characters[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT. There are multiple TV shows in various Indian languages having a Muslim character. It is unnecessary, irrelevant and impractical to maintain a list of Indian TV shows solely based on the religious profile of theirs characters, since every Indian TV show has some characters across all the major religions in India. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic. --Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Gul Mallah[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. I requested WP:G4 speedy deletion as this article is identical to the one deleted via AfD two days ago. The actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as none of his roles were major and there is no evidence of significant coverage and nothing has changed since last week. Spiderone 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have requested G4 again as I don't believe the removal was valid (it was removed by a confirmed sock of the article creator). Spiderone 20:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SNOW - it has already been deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalendu Deb Krori[edit]

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

the article was previously tagged with G11, there are no sources to estabilish notability of the person Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If you search his name, there is decent coverage of him and his work. Though it wouldn't be the end of the world if this page is deleted. LeBron4 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete. A look through Scopus returns only 70 documents and an h index of 11. It doesn't appear that being a principal of the school is enough for notability (only one other out of 51 has an article), and his memberships and awards aren't especially prestigious either. I only got 130 google hits for Kamalendu Krori (101 for "Kamalendu Deb|Dev Krori"), most of which are genealogy and wiki pages. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I think he worked/published as "KD Krori", like many of that era in India and elsewhere; searches on that string with physics or relativity come up with 6,640 & 6,090 hits, respectively, which look much more relevant. Also, he published his main works in 1975 & 1982, so a Google search will not provide any accurate notion of relative notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the subject is an elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences then that would probably fulfill WP:PROF; needs confirmation/sourcing. Not an expert in physics citations but the Google Scholar citations ("KD Krori")[19] look fairly healthy with two highly cited papers and two or three other moderate: 229, 157, 71, 51, 41. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, DGG, the admin who declined the G11, who is an expert in notability of academics, stated in edit summary "notable (NYAS)". Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. elected member NYAS is one of the qualifications which alone shows notability; the other two are Fellow AAAS, and the highest US honor, Fellow National Academy. (and some field-specific honors: Fellow IEEE, Fellow APS) h index is meaningless: someone with papers 400, 300 250 100 40 6 has a h of 6, and so does someone with papers 6 5 4 3 3 2, but they're at opposite ends of the scale. number of papers depends on whether the person wants to go the route of trying to write up the same work in as many little papers as possible. . What makes someone notable in science is being influential in their field among their peers; this is judged by their most important work. (analogous, someone who wrote one great symphony and nothing else of consequence is notable, as someone with 1 Olympic medal and no other significant competitions, and , if I understand it, a band is notable if they have only a few charting records (or maybe 1?).

Furthermore, as Expresso Addict says, the citation numbers depend upon time--in past years there were fewer journals and fewer articles and therefore fewer citations. The highest ( and, in my opinion, totally irrational) publication density is the last 10 years of biomedicine, where we usually ask for 2 papers with 100 or more. 10 years ago, we wanted one paper with 100 or more. Everything else is lower. Several people, including one of my graduate students, have published comparisons of ISI, Scopus, and GS citation numbers; the results are consistent: GS is twice the others because it includes a wider range of publications, but the relative numbers are consistent across people. . The numbers we usually go by here is GS, because everyone has access to it, not just people in a few dozen rich universities. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per the rationales of DGG and Espresso Addict, passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Been a principal of Cotton College and served as a Professor at St. Anthony's College, Shillong, which I've already sourced in article. This JSTOR paper mentions him as a member of Indian History Congress (see number 157). ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - In what sense is he supposed to be an NYAS member? The page gives no source ofr the claim and https://www.nyas.org/people-list/honorary-members-and-academy-fellows/ does not list him under either Honorary Members or Academy Fellows. If this claim pans out, it is a clear keep; without it, I might !vote delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mount Everest in 2016#Rescues and fatalities. Of note is that the nominator and initial delete !voter after the nomination later both revised their stances to redirect. Content from this article has already been merged to the redirect target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Pal[edit]

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

The subject does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO. It's effectively a case of WP:BLP1E. Very few people on the list List of people who died climbing Mount Everest have a stand-alone page and nearly all of them were accomplished mountaineers. Subhash Pal does not have significant coverage in a single report. The news is often grouped with 3 deaths and 1 survival in their group and then the history of Everest climbing and statistics. Roller26 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... the article basically just says "he was born and here is how he died." LeBron4 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Mount Everest in 2016#Indian expedition. The subject is not notable on his own but the event is notable and there is already an existing article covering the event. He was covered due to his event of death and 2 more climbers of his team died. There are enough reliable sources to expand about the circumstances and events surrounding their death. [20], [21] [22] There is an existing article, where this information can be preserved and the redirect can also be helpful as it is a plausible search term for people curious about this event. I have merged the useful content to Mount_Everest_in_2016#Rescues_and_fatalities as it is needed there regardless of the results of this discussion. --Walrus Ji (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji, Redirect to Mount Everest in 2016#Rescues and fatalities makes sense. Everything on the page will be available in its history. Roller26 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26, Thanks for agreeing, yes that is precisely what I had in mind. I have split the fatalities section and added sub section Mount Everest in 2016#Indian expedition. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji, I looked over this, and it seems good to me. LeBron4 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron4, great, I take your reply as a support to my Merge+Redirect proposal. I have already merged the content. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsite, California[edit]

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

A series of stations/sidings/spots along a rail line in the Kern County Desert. All of these show no more than a couple of buildings, if that, and nothing resembling a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Gypsite had a post office: [23], [24]. Personally, I feel that the presence of a post office is legal recognition and thus meets #1 of WP:GEOLAND. However, I acknowledge that virtually no one agrees with me so I'd prefer to not have my weak keep keep this article unless other people agree. The geological literature refers to Koehn Spring, Kane Spring and Cane Spring, all three of which seem to be the same place - the 1915 and 1922 editions of the Searles Lake 1915 map show Cane and Koehn Spring just north of Gypsite. There is a reference (Hensher) to a small narrow gauge railway being built to transfer the ore to the mill. The Rand Desert Museum has a number of short newspaper articles about the area, see [25]. On that page there is a reference to a post office being established at Koehn. Both Gypsite and Koehn are listed in the list of post offices. Presumably the name of the Koehn post office changed to Gypsite at some point. The Rand museum page has two 1914 references to "Gypsite Mills", a 1926 reference to Koehn of Gypsite. The Rand museum page mentions a story about how Koehn held off a group of armed claim jumpers in a battle at Koehn Lake, but this does not directly involve Gypsite. Hensher states that a hotel, depot and houses were built. I've found very few citations for Gypsite being anything other than a mill with a post office, a hotel and some houses. The story of Charles Koehn seems to be a bit more notable, perhaps that would be a better article? Cxbrx (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cxbrx's argument. LeBron4 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough sourcing to satisfy me, and per Cxbrx. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mario Jump 83! 10:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines of modern history[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be necessary because many of the links at Timelines of world history such as Timeline of the Middle Ages show an actual timeline rather than this article which is a directory of timelines. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite your reason for deletion. It makes no sense. The page Timelines of world history includes a link to Timelines of modern history. They do not overlap. Serendi ^podous 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous:

Fixed. Interstellarity (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity:: OK, so what would you replace it with? Serendi ^podous 10:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Actually, after reading the comments in the discussion, I think nominating the article for deletion was a bad idea. I think this article should be restructured so that the major events that happened since 1500 occur in one page rather than separate pages. Interstellarity (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to think about this one. Especially since the definition of "modern history" can be very subjective. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unintelligible, similar occurred here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody has given any !votes since this AfD began, I'm gonna throw in a Weak Keep !vote, following inline with Interstellarity's idea above that states "[the] article should be restructured so that the major events that happened since 1500 occur in one page rather than separate pages". Foxnpichu (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of modern history timelines. I am not a great fan of timelines, but this is a list not a timeline. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: By this logic, we should rename Timelines of world history to List of world history timelines. Would you support such a move? Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be up for that. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of modern history timelines per Peterkingiron's reasoning. Cf. WP:LISTOFLISTS. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NLIST as a wikireader navigational aid, also okay with a rename. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not reason given to delete, no one saying they want to delete it. Why was this relisted twice? Just close it already. Discuss name changes on the talk page. Dream Focus 06:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with regret There are many POVFORKs here and that will require a broader discussion than this mere AfD. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kyle (referee)[edit]

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

I did a search of British newspapers and Google Books and couldn't find any significant coverage. He gets name checked in match reports but nothing to indicate that he was a notable or influential figure in football at that time. Fails WP:GNG from what I can see but happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Giménez[edit]

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

A footballer with a very short career and very little coverage. Some players gain a level of fame or infamy for having very short careers but I can't find any evidence that Giménez is in that club. I can confirm the 8 Espanyol appearances (which do not qualify her for WP:NFOOTBALL) but, after the transfer to Barcelona, which gets some minor coverage here and here, I could not find anything else. It doesn't look like she made any headlines at all at Barcelona in her 2 years there. She has presumably retired and this source confirms that she was an unused substitute twice but made no senior appearances. She possibly played in the B team but I have no coverage of this and being a B team player is hardly grounds for notability. If anyone finds multiple sources showing WP:GNG-level coverage, please let me know. Spiderone 18:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. We need to stop being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilchoman distillery[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for a business. Ditch ∝ 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources would appear to meet the primary criteria. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP. Ben Mac Dui 14:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems uncontroversial. Plenty of sources from a range of places. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBUSINESS and WP:GNG, article reflects this especially with improvements made to the article subsequent to this afd nomination. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whisk(e)y distilleries are always notable. Some of the references in the article are non-promotional and have SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 05:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another nice example of a WP:HEY Spiderone 23:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Holzman[edit]

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

Notability issues for several years still unresolved.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprised it stuck around as long as it has. Clearly not notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, he has a lot of subscribers but almost zero coverage in WP:RS Spiderone 22:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Definitely a WP:ROTM. ASTIG😎 _{(HAPPY NEW YEAR!)} 15:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at all. —Notorious4life (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of people doing the non-monetary act of "subscribing" to your Youtube channel is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails notability guidelines at this time. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - run of the mill computer repairman and YouTuber. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant or notable. Surprised to see this stuck for years! - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear: delete. A highly combative set of "keep" comments by the article creator do not convince any of the other participants; the other "keep" vote puts all its eggs in the basket of one entry in one book. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William de Washington[edit]

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

PROD with the rational "Does not inherit notability from George Washington, only coverage I found was in genealogies, and it isn't sigcov of him." contested by article creator with the reasoning "No reasonable explanation for proposed deletion." I dispute that assertation-- there's no reasonable answer I've seen as to why this article meets GNG or a relevant SNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not genealogy, not even George Washington's genealogy. Notability is not hereditary, and I can see no serious argument that de Washington is notable independent of his relationship to the President. While I suppose one could argue for a merge and redirect to Washington family, it would still be WP:UNDUE since there are zero references to de Washington in reliable (i.e. non-genealogical) sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, as requested, taken a second look at the article, and my opinion remains the same. As far as I can tell, none of the non-genealogical sites reference Walter de Washington at all, so they do not provide a basis for asserting notability. The article should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I don't consider it necessary, I expressly reaffirm my previous !vote of "delete", for substantially the reasons explained by Agricolae. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even in genealogical sources I am not finding significant coverage, and by their nature, genealogical sources are not an indication of notability. Sole current claim to notability flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete because of WP:NOTINHERITED; no other assertion of notability; not even worth merging with Battle of Lewes Spiderone 22:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the article, my stance is still in favour of deletion. Merge as a last resort. Spiderone 21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this dispute was started I have added to the article. Walter de Washington is notable for having made significant improvements to Washington Old Hall, Having fought and died for the rebels at the battle of Lewes, and being the ancestor of George washington. Furthermore he is an important part of both American and British heritage. Seeing as how I have added to the article I recommend you all take a second look at it. --Tgec17 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Extraordinary Writ if you read some of those sources you would know that Washington Old hall had improvements in the middle of the 13th century, the same time Walter de Washington was lord of the manor, so even though it doesn't mention his name it is implied; you would have to be a fool not to see it.--Tgec17 (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through sources 5-8 there's not a single mention of Walter de Washington, and because not a single one of those sources make the connection, it's original research to do so-- and that doesn't mean we're fools, just that we are following policy. They are even less than passing mentions, more like passing implications-- still not establishing notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I think there is plenty of evidence for notability. The man turned what was once an insignificant manor into a manor fit for a king to stay at for a night. His work on the manor can still be seen to this day and it should not be treated in such a dismissive manner. When someone does something which if changed could change the course of history it is notable. Had Walter not expanded Washington old Hall who knows if George Washington would ever have lived? The family could have died out and without George Washington's leadership perhaps the British would have won the Revolutionary war... it is very important and is certainly notable. --Tgec17 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. Refs 1-4 are all worthless from a Wikipedia standpoint - self-published and crowdsourced online genealogies are non-WP:RS, and provide no indication of notability. With no bibliographical information, Ref. 6 is hard to call WP:RS, but a 1-sentence entry in a genealogical table is not significant coverage anyhow, and it doesn't say what it is being cited to support. Refs. 7, 9 & 10 say nothing about Walter de Washington whatsoever, nor does Ref. 8, which is improperly cited - the Wayback Machine is not a source, it is a host: the defunct web page it hosts is the source. Ref. 5 is just a trainwreck. The URL given is non-existent, the title referred to in the text is different than the title given in the footnote, it gives neither the volume nor page number, and the publisher listed did not exist at the time the books was published. I have been unable to identify the specific passage referred to, but even if accurately portrayed, appearing in a list of battle casualties does not make one notable. Taken together, these references are a whole lot of smoke, but no fire. There is no there there. Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is research available to to support Walter de Washington's notability but I simply have not had time to access them. I ask for more time to do so. --Tgec17 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this 'available research' supports his notability if you haven't had time to access it? Nothing you have provided thus far gives the least indication of notability. Agricolae (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an entry for the subject in Burke's Presidential Families of the United States of America by Hugh Massingberd and this contains dates and details such as the subject's wife. Naturally, accounts of such an ancient knight are sketchy but, as there is clearly interest and documentation, deletion is not appropriate. The worst case would be merger to Washington family, Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not 'an entry' on Walter in this book. There is an entry on the Washington patrilineage that includes a grand total of one run on sentence: "Walter de Washington acquired land in Northumberland jure uxoris, named among the Durham Knights at the Battle of Lewes, 1264, b c 1212, m Joan (or Juliana) (living as his widow 1266), sister and heiress of Sir Roger de Whitchester, Keeper of the Rolls, and was probably k at the Battle of Lewes 14 May 1264, leaving, with other issue, . . ." followed by a similar rudimentary account for the next generation, and the one after that. . . . This is not substantial coverage, nor does it contribute to establishing notability because the sole criterion for mention in this work has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject himself, only the electoral fortunes of remote descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is WP:SIGCOV in my view because it contains several facts and seems reasonably reliable and independent. The overall coverage clearly indicates that WP:LISTN is passed and so deletion is inappropriate. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly disagree over the meaning of "significant coverage", but LISTN? A policy for stand-alone lists is relevant . . . . how? Agricolae (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there is anything worth merging); otherwise just redirect to Washington Old Hall. All appropriate information can be given in that article. I am not suggesting that Massingberd is not accurate, merely that this person is NN and we probably know no more about him than the quote in green by Agricolae. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whole article has been revamped and should stand up to any scrutiny. All delete suggestions are no longer valid until those who advocated for delete have read the new article. --Tgec17 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is now officially a trainwreck. User:Tgec17 has arbitrarily decided that the man's name was different, claiming 'New evidence has come to light that the name of the knight was William'. This 'new evidence' is a book from 1879, so here 'new' is a relative term. The change in name is also directly contradicted by the closest this article gets to reliable sources, the Burke's Presidential Families book and the newly added The American Genealogist article, again miscited, which like Burke's is yet again a single-sentence mention of Walter - yes Walter not William - in a genealogical publication only interested in following the patrilineage. The 1879 book is self-published, non-scholarly non-WP:RS genealogy of the worst sort, yet is now serving as the core source for the whole article. Other changes include a rather substantial set of WP:OR conclusions, while the recasting of other sentences makes it appear sources say things they do not. Before it was a reasonable summary of a non-notable individual. Now it is a complete jumble of unreliable, dated, erroneous, trivial and made up information. Now it definitely needs to be deleted because it is too much of a mess to sort out. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so first of all I didn't "decide" it was different. Second of all the book is published by Repressed Publishing; Reprint edition (January 1, 2015). I dont really think you know what you're talking about at all. None of the information is made up. You should stop your slanderous comments. Additionally you have yet to prove a single reason why it should be deleted, the only thing you've proven is that it now has reliable sources. You say "dated" like its an issue that changes. It is not. Historical information rarely changes especially on so obscure a topic- in this case the older version is actually more reliable as it was closer to the time. I think its time for you to admit defeat. --Tgec17 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. . . . .just, wow! This is wrong on so many levels. Agricolae (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain Agricolae? I have two published reliable sources supporting the article, so no I didn't "make up" anything. Furthermore one of my sources "The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham" is described as "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." It is also written by Robert Surtees a famous author with a spotless record who spent his life working on this book. On the other hand Burke's peerage was edited by Hugh Massingberd something of an oddball who according to the daily telegraph "one friend told him, "you are in urgent need of psychiatric help."" With a man so Eccentric having edited 30 books in his short career it is no surprise that he would have made a small mistake such as replacing William with Walter. Your disparaging claims about my sources have no proof and are contradicted every step of the way. Both of my sources are strong solid secondary sources and I have yet to see you prove that they have a single issue. Finally I have no reason to believe that Burke's is any more of a reliable source and considering there are two earlier sources which contradict it, and Burke's covers the lineage of 37 different families over ~800 years I will trust the older sources (as most would). P.S if you think that the sources are "improperly cited" why don't you help out and cite them properly? --Tgec17 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict)) You asked. 1) You had two modern WP:RS sources that called him Walter, but when you found one source from 1879 that called him William, you made the decision that the 1879 source was the one to follow, and thus 'decided' to rename the page to call him William, in direct contradiction of the only reliable sources you had. 2) The book was reprinted by Repressed Publishing - they made no intellectual contribution whatsoever, they simply lifted the images from Google Books, printed and sold them to suckers who didn't realize it was available for free online. They did not provide any evaluation for accuracy or noteworthiness. As the title page clearly shows, this is an 1879 publication. 3) Your thoughts on whether I know what I am talking about carry little weight given that you seemingly don't know the difference between a Google-Book mill and an actual publisher. 4) You have no source for: Based off of the evidence of him fighting in the bishops contingent and holding a fief from him, it is certain that he was a vassal of the bishop of Durham and perhaps even a friend and or Retainer (medieval) and the very way you are expressing it makes it clear it is your own conclusions - you made it up. Based on his ownership of the manor during the time of its improvements it is very likely that he was the one who made significant improvements to Washington Old Hall This is explicitly your own conclusions, neither of your sources attributing the actions to 'William' (or Walter) - you made it up. 5) as such, there is no slander in pointing out that the article contains conclusions not found in the source. 6) 'Proof' is not really the standard, but the lack of significant coverage in any reliable source, as I have pointed out, deprives the subject of WP:Notability, which is the standard. 7) The article does have reliable sources (the Washington book is not one of them), but that is beside the point. None of the reliable sources demonstrate notability, given that they are either genealogical in nature and hence do not have criteria for inclusion that indicates personal notability (plus each of them only dedicates a single sentence to him), or they don't name the person at all. 8) 'Dated' is a real thing, both in terms of quality and focus. The entire approach to so-called scholarship among the vast majority of 19th century genealogists and antiquarians was laughable. Even many of the 'better scholars' couldn't resist making things up to connect the dots they wanted to connect. Modern scholarship bears almost no resemblance to this 19th century approach to ancestor-collecting. Further, the sensibilities are completely different - in the 19th century, women, minorities, poor, etc. were all marginalized, while their status-hungry mindset made it critically important to determine who the closest royal relative of the subject was. Modern scholarship takes a different view on all these issues. 9) Historical information never changes, by definition. What we think we know about it can change dramatically, both through the discovery of new information among the vast amounts of primary records made available in the intervening 140 years, and also in unmasking the confusion and outright fraud of former authors. If there is no modern work on the subject, that doesn't mean we should use old work, it means the topic is probably not notable. 10) The claim that 'older sources are better because they are closer in time to the events they are describing' represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes historical writing reliable. We are not talking about something written within a hundred years of the events being described, when the events described still be within the historical memory of living people (who would have heard about it from first-hand witnesses) - we are talking about something written 600 years later, at a time before modern source-based genealogical research came to be appreciated, supposedly being better than something written 750 years later with all the tools of modern historical research. The former is not better - genealogies from the 17th to the 19th centuries are the absolute worst in terms of reliability. And last but not least 11) 'admit defeat' is completely inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. So, other than absolutely everything you said, your contribution was spot on. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

((Added note in response to additional comment)) Ormerod is being used to document that the name appears in a list. Massingberd dedicates all of one sentence to the subject. Their reliability is thus irrelevant as neither provides the "significant" coverage that demonstrates notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down Agricolae this is not a battleground. You said that my thoughts about you carry little weight demonstrate and this demonstrates a battleground mindset a clear violation of our policies here at wikipedia. When I say I don't think you know what you're talking about, I really mean it. When I asked you to admit defeat I was only trying to save you time and energy which I'm sure could be spent in far more productive ways than attempting to delete a Wikipedia article about a notable person backed by reliable sources. I'm sorry you interrupted it as challenge or an insult, that was not my intention. I hope you were not trying to insult me when you used the word trainwreck twice because some would see it as an insult. You claim I had two modern sources. But the only source I had which wasn't from a genealogical website (which you so thoroughly attacked as being unreliable) was Burke's. I have two older sources which are more reliable and they both use William instead of Walter. As far as "notability" if you read the article you will see there is plenty to provide notability; you would have a very difficult job proving it wasn't notable without bringing your own personal bias's into play. The fact that Massingberd only mentioned in with one sentence has no effect on the other sources that were used. Again I fail to see any evidence of your claims that 17th century 19th century sources were "the absolute worst in terms of reliability. One major reason why earlier sources can be more reliable is because things are usually written down on paper and paper usually does not last very long. So the closer you go back to the time period the more likely it is that there was a surviving original paper from which the author got their information from. The use of older sources is completely valid and you have no basis for your argument. Both of the books I mentioned are reliable and we both know that. Basically please refrain from bringing your own personal bias's against 19th-18th century sources into this because you can't prove a thing. My reliable source say William held land from the bishop and fought with him at Lewes. Please refrain from accusing me of making stuff up because not only is it slanderous it also makes you look stupid and that's something neither of us want. I happen to know that if you hold a fief from someone and fight for them you are their vassal. Anyone with any basic knowledge on the middle ages knows that. It is a very simple conclusion to make. As far as I am aware it is allowed, and common, for wikipedia articles to say "this probably was the case" etc. so I dont know what your on about. I am honestly a little shocked at your attitude, your accusations, and your lack of proof for any of your claims. You seem to be trying to take some kind of morale high ground. If you really do have pure intentions why don't you help out with the article? I don't think you will. I think your opinion cannot be reasonably counted in this discussion because it slaps of personal bias against the sources which does not have a reasonable explanation. Furthermore I believe this disqualifies you from making comments on the notability because you appear to be not working for the best interests of Wikipedia, but out of some personal self-righteous mission. Heres a list of your unproven claims (actually come to think of it, every second sentence you make an unproven claim pretty much):

.They did not provide any evaluation for accuracy or noteworthiness

.Genealogies from the 17th to the 19th centuries are the absolute worst in terms of reliability.

.None of the reliable sources demonstrate notability

.If there is no modern work on the subject, that doesn't mean we should use old work, it means the topic is probably not notable.

."confusion and outright fraud of former authors." No proof of fraud for the books I use.

--Tgec17 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is unchanged: There is not a single WP:RS that demonstrates notability. That was the case before you launched into this Dunning-Kruger wall-of-text and remains the case after. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Agricolae. Two sources conform to the general notability guideline, Albert Welles "The pedigree and history of the washington family..." and "The history and antiquities of the county palatine". These sources are both reliable, and provide information demonstrating the notability. It is notable that William had to pay the king money to marry Alicia de Lexington; it means he was reporting directly to the king thus making him notable.

Side note - fix your attitude no place for that here. I have plenty of things I want to say about you but I'm not because I'm being civil, I expect the same from you.

--Tgec17 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a claim that improves through simple repetition. They are not both reliable, and neither demonstrates notability. Welles is self-published, non-reliable 19th century genealogical schlock, not WP:RS - he gives the man the wrong name, that is how bad he is - and genealogies do not demonstrate notability as their only criteria for inclusion is genealogical relationship. Hutchinson is at least attempting to be scholarly and historical rather than genealogical, but it is only being used to document that the name is found in a casualty list, which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. "It is notable that William had to pay the king money to marry Alicia de Lexington; it means he was reporting directly to the king thus making him notable." That is patently false. It means that Alice was ward of the king. It says nothing about Washington other than that he had the money to 'buy' the right to marry a propertied wife. This is why we leave 'what it means' to the sources, rather than deciding for ourselves based on what we think we know. Agricolae (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're claims are the ones that are not worth repeating because they are false. William de Washington is called William de Washington by both authors firstly. Secondly I don't know what your issue is with Welles but his book is important enough that it continues to be published after several hundred years so you had best get used to that. In regards to the kings payment Actually that's not the only thing it proves. If you knew anything about the middle ages you would know that only men of high standing were allowed to negotiate directly with the king over wardships. You don't seem to understand that a wardship was not seen as property that could be "bought" or "sold" in any sense and I'm beginning to wonder why you think it is appropriate for you to provide commentary on this subject that you know so little about. The king of England was everyone in England's overlord and it was seen that when a child or woman's husband/father died the king was the natural custodian of both the heir and the estate. However such custodianship was expensive and it had to be "worth doing" for the king, hence the fees of wardship. In all my studies I know of not a single case where the king forced a widow to marry against her will- I'm sure it happened at least once but it certainly was not the norm. The fact that this piece of information survives over 800 years does indeed make it a notable piece of information which when combined with all the other information makes the article notable. Whichever way you cut it the fact remains that Hutchinson's book is indisputably a reliable source which provides notable information. William de Washington is an intriguing story of a lesser feudal lord from the Durham Palatineship who marries a rich heiress, (probably) builds up his manorhouse, and then fights for the bishop and the king at the battle of Lewes. Sure its a simple story without much detail but its a true story nonetheless and it deserves its own article for many reasons but primarily because it gives an example of the life of a lesser Durham knight in the middle of the 13th century, something which, so far as I am aware, has not yet been written about on wikipedia and should be. --Tgec17 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really tedious. Reprinting of images taken off of Google Books means absolutely nothing with regard to one name on one page. Notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. Giving a list that includes the subject's name is not significant coverage; a whole sentence, like in Burke's and Washington's TAG article, is not significant coverage, and Welles is worthless. As to your supposed superior knowledge about the medieval society, you continue to miss the point. Any argument based on 'he is notable because of what I know that you don't about medieval society' is completely misplaced - significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources is what matters. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one who is missing the point here. He does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Another source the peer reviewed journal The American Geneaologist mentions him too. --Tgec17 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A name in a list ≠ significant coverage, and that is all that Hutchinson gives him (or at least all the source is used for), and a single sentence ≠ significant coverage, and that is all Burke's gives him, and that is all the Washington TAG article gives him, and Welles is rubush, and self-published genealogical web sites are even worse, and the Washington Hall sources don't name him at all. That is all we have and you don't get to 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources' by combining some reliable sources that don't give significant coverage with other sources that are unreliable, and a third batch that ignore him entirely. Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another reliable source has been added "The Earliest Washingtons and their Anglo-Scottish Connections (1964)" which provides plenty of notable information :). Other reliable sources providing notable details about this knight: English Episcopal Acta: Durham, 1153-1195 (1980, Pub. British Academy), The American Genealogist (1970, peer reviewed journal), "The story of Washington Old Hall's thousand year history – and its (slightly tenuous) American connection", Burke's Colonial Gentry (Many publications), The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham (1732-1814), The Castle Howell School Record, Comprising a List of Pupils from the Beginning, Papers on the Origin, Name and Changes (1888 Originally Harvard University). Thats eight solid sources providing notable information. Is everyone ready to close this deletion post down? I would like anyone who opted to Delete the article to re-read it please it is much better now. --Tgec17 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That 'new source' (again miscited) is not independent of the miscited TAG article, written by the same author - for notability the multiple sources have to be independent of each other. (Plus even without being able to see it I can tell it has been erroneously summarized, because the information you have attributed it in different parts of the article is contradictory.) English Episcopal Acts is the very definition of a passing mention, which doesn't qualify, the TAG article has a single sentence in a genealogical context, The Story of Washington Hall doesn't even name the subject, Burke's Colonial Gentry doesn't name the subject at all but Burke's Presidential Families appears to be the intended source and it has just a single sentence in a genealogical context, the county palatinate of Durham source is used to document that a name appears in a list of names that is nowhere close to significant coverage, The Castle Howell School Record doesn't ~~name the subject at all~~only says int he text that a person of the name was at Lewes in its text, just a chart. So, the grand total is, maybe, one reliable independent secondary source that may have more than passing mention (Washington), and that is in a genealogical context that conveys no presumption of notability. Again, there is no there there. Agricolae (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you clearly didn't check any of the citations why don't you go back and actually check them. And if you think they are not cited correctly, fix them. There is far more than a passing mention in these reliable sources do not be dishonest. I don't want to have to bring up quotes because I don't want to embarrass you but I will if I have to. What I have right now is a solid Wikipedia article backed by at least 5 reliable sources which all give notability and which provides a biography about a knight who lived 800 years ago. I think you're done here. Although you had some valid points along the way there is now no way one could possibly say that the article does not have notable details without lying through their teeth. With respect I think we would all like to hear from some different people rather than hearing you regurgitate the same false claims over and over again. --Tgec17 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "the article does not have notable details". 'Notable details' isn't even a thing. Notability is about the article subject, and doesn't arise from simply citing every passing mention found. As has been explained in detail, none of your sources are really on. Of the list you gave above, which I presume to be your best effort at demonstrating notability, the two books that give detailed coverage both are self-published and one is completely unscholarly. Three give a single sentence, one of which just refers to 'a William' and the other two aren't even giving the man the right name (or are they). One source has two sentences, one summarizing a transaction in the collection of primary documents but not really about the subject himself, and the other simply contextualizing someone else as 'father of William'. One apparently lists the person among battle participants but doesn't make them subject of a single sentence, and one doesn't name him at all. This is not what constitutes notability, a person only of substantial interest to genealogists systematically tracing every member of the Washington family. The only 'regurgitated false claims' here are the ones trying to turn this very poor record of documentation into notability. As to what 'we would all like', unless you have a squirrel in your pocket or multiple personality disorder, you are speaking only for yourself here. Agricolae (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Washington family/Old Washington Hall. A lot of this article is not biographical details about William himself. "The Earliest Washingtons" describes several ancestors without necessarily establishing the need for separate articles, only showing he was one of many distant ancestors. Reywas92^Talk 21:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae... I have never met anyone like you before. First of all please cease your insulting tone. Second of all I think we've all heard enough from you and I maintain that based on your rude tone, useless misrepresentation of the facts, and general unproductiveness you should probably leave Wikipedia for a while and come back once you've cooled down. Frankly based on your attitude and your general unreliability I don't think you are in any position to judge if a source is scholarly or not. Since you continue to fail to acknowledge there is notability I will now have to take quotations.

We'll start with The earliest Washingtons and their Anglo-Scottish Connections from the the University of Wisconsin 1964:

"Moreover, the fact the the lord of Washington was charged 6 marks for the common aid (although one mark normally sufficed for the vill of Washington) affords contemporary proof of the importance of the family's Durham Holdings. (Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, vol. II p. 179) (The earliest... p. 6)

In 1227 the lord of the manor of Washington was William de Washington so the fact that he was being charged 6 times his due from the bishop of Durham in common aid suggests notability.

"Walter himself however died quite early without issue: and in 1211 his brother William de Washington (Junior), his younger brother and successor, gave sixty marks and two palfreys in Durham to King John to marry Alice (Than a ward of the crown), the wealthy widow of a Nottinghamshire knight, Sir John de Lexington, Kinsman and namesake of Henry III's famous judge (Pipe rolls of Cumbd. Westd. and Durham, p 211) (note 6)."

Again clear Evidence of notability... we continue.

"The close rolls reveal this William as lord of Washington in 1227 (he is presumably the 'William de Wessent' whose name was inscribed by a 13th century hand in the Durham Liber Vitae); and in 1237-1239 he attested a charter at newcastle in company with Brian Fitz Alan of Bedale then Sherriff of Northumberland (Rotuli Litterum Clasarum, vol. II, pg 179; Priory of Finchale, Surtees Soc. , p. 82).

We move on to English Episcopal Acta; Durham, 1153-1195 "Mention of a charter in a royal mandate of 1227 forbidding the exaction of six marks tallage in respect of Washington from William de Washington "contra tenorem carte sue quam inspeximus". William having shown that he holds the vill for 4 pounds a year and is liable for no more than one mark a year in aid." (59 of English Episcopal Acta: Durham...)

This is significant because it means that William had enough political power to get the king to interfere in his feudal contract with the bishop of Durham. It is also extensive coverage.

Finally The Castle Howell School Record Fb&c Limited published and many other publishers...(yes agricolae you were wrong either intentionally or through your own incompetance you missed it, the Castle Howell School Record does mention William de Washington, more than once!);

"There was a William de Washington at the battle of Lewes..." p. 196.

"William de Washington of Wessington of Washington, Co. Durham , of the Bishop, 11 Henry III [1226]. He was at the battle of Lewes" 192

More proof of extensive coverage. Agricolae I'm losing my patience with you and quite honestly I don't know anyone who wouldn't be. Since Argricolae has trouble understanding simple facts I will now illustrate clearly to everyone that this article has notability;

There is significant coverage on it. Details are there with no independent research. It is more than just a trivial mention but it is not the main topic of the source.

These sources are reliable. Many of them were published over 50 years ago by scholars from universities. The word published derives from the Latin word meaning to make known publicly according to wikipedia. This information has been made public for over 50 years and is generally accepted by the scholarly community.

The sources are secondary but also cite primary sources.

The work's are independent of the subject; there is no advertising, autobiographies, press release, or questionable websites.

Finally the significant coverage in the sources mean that it is presumed it should have its own article.

I am done speaking to Agricolae, someone else please save me.

On Wikipedia, notability derives from policy, not Latin. A single genealogical source (not indicative of notability because genealogies dig out as much information as they can find, however trivial, on everyone in the lineage), plus a bunch of sources that each give single-sentence passing mention, which you choose to overinterpret into equating to notability is not actually notability just because you declare adamantly that it is and insult anyone who challenges your conclusion. Oh, and if you are going to accuse someone of incompetence: 1) you might want to carefully read what they wrote so as not to falsely accuse them based on your own misreading - I intentionally wrote in the text to exclude the second mention in the accompanying genealogical chart and hence not in the text , and 2) you might want to spell incompetence correctly, so as not to cut into your moral authority in leveling the insult. Agricolae (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is a line in the text on page 196... second of all don't try to use technicalities like that in a dishonest way. Thirdly you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying about the Latin definition of published. Basically that is the definition Wikipedia uses of published. The sources I use are reliable and published, I really don't know what your issue is but I strongly believe that your strange devotion to deleting the article, your false accusations, your complete disregard for the citations, your failure to even look at the citations, your reliance on strange technicalities of speech, your snide comments, and your petty insults disqualify you from judging anything related to this article especially the reliability of the sources. I believe this also invalidates anyone who simply opts to delete based on your laughable and dishonest conclusions. I've already explained how it is notable and I am not going to do it again, I think we should hear from some different people your not saying anything new or productive, simply restating your opinion. Finally I want to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the only persons who have opted to delete the article since it had been massively updated are Ealdgyth and Agricolae. The article has changed radically since than and the other users interpretations of the article are from the ORIGINAL article which is far different than the current one. The article currently has more than enough notable information from multiple different sources to warrant its own article and we have yet to hear from anyone a second time except for the same single person who keeps commenting repeatedly in a strangely devoted, rude, and unprofessional way including a snide remark in almost every comment in a way which strongly indicates a battle ground attitude. --Tgec17 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Washington family. There is not enough to support him having a stand-alone article, few sentences here and there. But some of this content - the parts that are referenced and did not fail verification - may be of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree if you read the article you will see there is plenty of information to warrant its own article so much so that if it were to be merged it would most likely lose much important information.--Tgec17 (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Argricolae. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a very egregious violation of our not geneaology guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. A redirect to Washington family is problematic, due to the now confusion of whether this was William or Walter. The page move during an AfD was ill-advised at best. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its William. No problem. Furthermore according to the Wikipedia guidelines if the article in question has valid facts that can be merged with an article this is preferable and the article in question should not be deleted. This article has valid facts that are historically important and making this information available to Wikipedia users is a commendable thing to do- in other words the facts have merit. Now the question is would you be able to merge the articles together and not lose any important information from this article? I think you will find the answer to be no, you cannot without making the Washington family article into a strange mix of two articles where you have some general information about the Washington family and then you have a personal biography of a single member of the family. Therefore I believe that this article must stay its own article because the very fact that there is too much information to merge into another article proves that the topic is notable. Despite some users attempts to disparage the sources, the sources remain reliable sources which provide a great wealth of information about the topic which allows for notability. Some accusations of "sources not agreeing with each other" namely the one specific case where 18th and 19th century scholars believe William to have fought at the battle of Lewes whereas 20th and 21st believe his son to have fought there does nothing to suggest that the sources are unreliable. because it comes from the interpretation of a word "Wautier" by different scholars from different times periods. The reason this does not discredit either scholar is because neither scholar can prove his claims are true. The presentation of these two different views actually shows that the topic is important enough that it has been in discussion for hundreds of years and people have different opinions about it which actually contributes to notability. Furthermore any user claiming to give an opinion on this topic should be an active participant in the conversation or else they are unproductive and their opinions are not constructive criticism but rather a passing whim of blind generalization. Since almost all of the users who voted to delete this page have only commented once and have not been active participants in this conversation I do not think it is productive or rational to give their opinions much if any weight on the topic, especially when considering many of them have not checked on the page since they made their original comment and it has changed dramatically. --Tgec17 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. Tgec17, everyone's vote counts. Your changes have not changed anything viz notability, and the only person behaving in an inappropriate way here is you. See WP:BLUDGEON. 174.212.222.105 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: Lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. N is NOTINHERITED from family and WP is NOTGENEOLOGY. I don't see anything worth merging here, but if someone wanted to write a brief paragraph with souces for Washington Family a redirect would be reasonable. // Timothy :: talk 23:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are several ideas which have found consensus in this discussion. There is a consensus that this is a notable topic. There is also consensus, including from several editors who believe this article should be kept, that this article, as presently constituted, does not comply with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. While AfD may not be cleanup that does not mean that articles which do not comply with policies and guidelines must be kept indefinitely. There is, instead, consensus that this article should focus only on notable golf courses in order to comply with policies and guidelines. Hopefully with this basis in consensus this interested editors will have a path on how to improve this article to be of encyclopedic use to our readers. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Failure of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (7. Simple listings). This is an indiscriminate simple list of mostly red-linked non-notable golf courses without any context or clear criteria beyond geography; Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom fulfils the latter purpose for articles on notable subjects. Many of the blue links are actually redirects because the club/courses themselves have little to make them independently notable. Finally, such lists are almost impossible to maintain – I spent a fair amount of time trying to tidy this one up and add citations, but there is just no coverage of the subject as as a whole except for databases and directories which are also never up-to-date due to the rate of turnover (new courses, closures, other changes, etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for the same reasons as above. This and the other similar articles don’t add any coverage to the subject and a category for notable individual courses is sufficient.Tracland (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could easily be turned into a tabled list with info about each club by county. If anything in cases where the clubs might not be notable enough for separate articles, basic data in a list is most useful. † Encyclopædius 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per may rationale above, such a task is almost impossible due to the scope (which is everything) and would also violate WP:NOTGUIDE. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}
Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and complement to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom per WP:CLN. Removing any redlink entry that does not actually merit an article would completely obviate the nom's conmplaints, and is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually wouldn't. It would also raise new issues. Such a list would have no determinable or definable criteria for inclusion and as such would serve no purpose other than as an index but without a broad enough scope. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria would be the same as the category. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Encyclopædius's argument. LeBron4 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 3 to 4 thousand courses in the UK, perhaps 5,000 if we add defunct courses. Bit of black art as to what to include, par-3 courses, pitch and putt? The reality is that this list is not maintained and is worse than useless. What purpose does an out-of-date list serve. None that I can see. The idea that it can "easily be turned into a tabled list with info about each club by county" is pure fantasy, I'm afraid. Not quite as bad as maintaining a list of coffee shops in the UK, but well beyond out present effort level. Nigej (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man; it doesn't need to be a list of every golf course that exists, just the ones that have articles. This was already addressed above. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several point come to mind. 1. For golfing purposes the UK/Ireland is normally thought of as 4 countries. 2. Lists of notable courses could readily be added to articles like Golf in Ireland where there is already such a list. Golf in Wales seems to be attempting to have a complete list, but could be trimmed down to notable courses. I'd have no objection to similar lists for England and Scotland. 3. The current name implies a complete list. If we are going for a partial list we need a rename at the least. In summary my view is that notable courses can be listed as part of a "Golf in X" article. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The category structure is subcategorized in the way you suggest for the lists. That's a development matter, not deletion, in any event, and this page title would still be helpful as a set index if those are split off (even if just sublists within the "Golf in X" articles, just as we have Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom as a parent category). No rename is necessary, we do not include self-references such as "notable X" in page titles; it has long been understood and supported by consensus that inclusion for most lists is limited just to notable examples (as you could see with nearly every list of companies, lists of people, etc.). postdlf (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are describing the WP world as you would like it, not how it is. Most lists are actually littered with redlinks and/or unlinked entries; they also have defined criteria, unlike what you are suggesting here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The criteria is "golf course" that exists "in the United Kingdom", and it is trivial to additionally limit it to "has an article." It may take some effort, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not delete pages for complaints that can be fixed through editing or further development. See also policy at WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "Exists and has article" are not legitimate or even definable criteria, and ignores the significant number of bluelink redirects in this list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just saying words at this point. There are clearly plenty of articles on golf courses located in the United Kingdom, as demonstrated by the category. We index articles by what they are per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDIR. Good luck on Wikipedia and have a Happy New Year, postdlf (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for being so condescending. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Split and Trim: If the UK is like the US, there will be SIGCOV of this as a group, so it passes LISTN. It also passes CLN/AOAL, it seems useful from a navigation perspective. The lists could be eventually formed into sortable tables with more sourced data, which will enhance its usefulness. CLN states that, "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive."

I agree the list should be split into 4 articles, both from a maintenance and SIGCOV perspective per WP:LSC, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." I believe the majority of the RS would be at this level.

As with all lists, the lede needs to precisely state the criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC

I hate lists that are enourmous collections of spam redlinks, these should be removed during the split, with the exception of those that have a clear claim of notability. I understand that redlinks may inspire good articles, but an enourmous collection of redlinks such as this would be better at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf to encourage others to create articles. The second criteria at WP:CSC does allow for non-notabile list items, but I believe the list would be strongest if it conforms more closely to the third criteria at WP:CSC based on "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."

Finally consider removing the galleries.

// Timothy :: talk 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the redlinks, as AfD is not for cleanup. The list has a clear inclusion criteria, and having a category is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice a lot of the blue links are to redirects or one sentence stubs. Need to remove the red links and the redirects. If any of the stubs aren't notable delete them. Dream Focus 07:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While I can see why some editors would see this as a good candidate for deletion, on balance I think this could be a useful list and helpful for navigation and information. However I agree this needs to be reworked. Particularly I feel it needs to be heavily pruned and reduced to notable courses, and certainly only those clubs or course with their own articles should appear on it. As it is, the list has too many minor courses that realistically are never going to have articles and which editors are going to find impossible to keep track of (for instance one of the read links is to Camperdown in Dundee, which has now closed). As an aside there is also a question of whether should it be restricted to active courses or historic ones as well? Dunarc (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:LIST, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTDIR. What a huge mess. We are not a web host to list a whole bunch of golf clubs, most of which are private, many are not notable, and all of which cater to the top 1%. I've seen many complaints about having too many articles about the aristocracy, and while I don't agree completely with it, that seems to be the consensus. I would be willing to change my mind if given good reasons. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article should be deleted. I voted to delete because I think the article is a list of non notable golf courses that doesn't meet the criteria for a list article. However, I don't understand your other comments. Whether or not a golf course is public or private is unlikely to have any relevance to its general notability nor does the nature of the individuals to which they cater. (By a long way it would be untrue to say all golf courses only cater to the top 1%). The aristocracy appears to have no relevance whatsoever to a list of golf courses. What is the purpose of these comments with regards to whether or not the article should be deleted? Tracland (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then prune the red links and the redirects that do not lead to golf course articles – per WP:NOTDUPE relative to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom. This is a functional navigational aid that is actually superior to the category, because additional content can be added that category pages do not support. Pruning the red links and stated redirects solves any WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues, and red links for golf courses that meet notability guidelines that do not have articles can be added as long as supporting references from reliable sources are also added. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. "Keep and clean up" is a cop-out unless you're willing it to do it yourself. I'd keep a bluelinked list with more info, but it's unlikely anybody wants to actually make the effort. If so, they can do it in draft space. Sandstein 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NOTDIR keep only the notable courses, remove all others (redlinks). Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of the redlinks are notable (just don't have articles as yet) and lots of the bluelinks are not (redirects or should be deleted/redirected). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a valid purpose in that it clearly complements Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom Spiderone 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Harmon[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Tuskegee Airman whose unit didn't see any action in World War II is like a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend and because the sources are entirely primary. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stjepan Radeljić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Bosnian top tier is listed at WP:FPL so he does pass WP:NFOOTBALL quite comfortably. Soccerbase also shows one appearance in the top level of Croatia. Since he is still young and has an active career, it probably isn't appropriate to delete him at this moment in time. Spiderone 15:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - comfortably meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 23 years and has an ongoing career see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY. Page could be spruced up a bit.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dove (sea captain)[edit]

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

Shame, because it's a nicely put together article and all. BUT; Lack of lasting notability (unremarkable seadog); WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think the book, published in 1940 and not reprinted, confers notability nor does its part in the film about the Battle of the River Plate. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of mentions in secondary sources. [26] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dove's death in 1957 was covered in the New York Times([27]), currently cited in the article. Hawkeye7's simple search also demonstrates plenty of coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Africa Shell, clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added Times obituary reference Piecesofuk (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the New York Times and The Times obituaries he meets GNG. I agree it's in the range of of WP:ONEEVENT, but for me there's enough verifiable biographical information to make his article more than just a restatement of MV Africa Shell. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might as well have articles for Maurice McCarthy Jr. and Marian Elliott as they had longer obits than Dove on the same page of the NYT...Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they are notable for more than one event, yes. I've written GAs based largely on obituaries and I fail to see what's wrong with them as a source for biographies. As you said in your comment, this is a problem of WP:1E and not about the quality of the sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that we both know that one obituary alone does not, of course, make someone notable, but rather the combination of reliable sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a good article as far as I can see, enjoyed reading it. Very relevant seeing as he was a prisoner on the Graf Spee during the Battle of the River Plate and was a technical adviser to the film. Another case of #hawtyWikisnobbishness in wanting it removed? BigPhil 15:37; 6 January 2021 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk)
Keep per Modussiccandi. An obit in the New York Times does not confer automatic notability, but it's a heuristic that the person might be notable. Combined with other sources, that is enough for WP:GNG. I have no opinion about the notability of the other persons mentioned. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was deleted under G5. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akash mahmud[edit]

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

The article barely presents a claim of importance. Narrowly avoiding A7, I believe this should be deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. The current sources are only google entries or self published sites. I could not find anything reliable either. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom.~Yahya (✉) • 14:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely and utterly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC Spiderone 15:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, was tempted to delete on the spot for A7. Absolutely non-notable. MER-C 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because you run together a lot of alleged fields someone has been in does not make them default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and G5 No evidence of notability, and hit by a sockfarm.. Steve M (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Match (2015 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The film is a well-known production with famous actors that was broadcast on a major cable television channel. Sourcing can easily be added to bring it up to snuff. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched for significant coverage and have not found much other than listings of when the film is airing. Existence is not notablility, and a film's notability is not inherited by who was in it or how it was shown. Per WP:NF, adapted from WP:GNG, a film should only have a stand-alone article if it "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BOVINEBOY2008 22:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films are not automatically notable just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist — the notability test for a film is not "has famous actors in it", and instead requires things like (a) notable film or television awards, (b) demonstrable box office or ratings success, and/or (c) enough attention paid to it by film or television critics to get it over WP:GNG on its sourceability. But none of those are on offer here. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to show a passing of our notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a few reviews: [[28]], [[29]], and [[30]]. Probably fall short from "significant" coverage, don't they? Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these are blogs/SPS and are not by notable critics. Thus they do not speak to the notability of the film. ~~2600:1006:B121:D19B:D8E:7F0F:76AC:42D1 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)~~ Sorry, this was me. I was logged out on my phone. BOVINEBOY2008 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BOVINEBOY's assessment of the provided references. Kolma8 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From what I can see, fails GNG and NFILM doubtless. Java Hurricane 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This nomination is not a valid argument for nominating it for deletion. Feel free to renominate with a legit reason. Improve before you nominate. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yayuan Liu[edit]

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

The article is about a post doctoral fellow who edited her own wiki page. The reference has been take from her own website. This violates biography of living person rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantaka666 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above. This is a personal profile and the person has enforced her own profile on wikipedia by taking advantage of the free editing platform that wikipedia provides. This page should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.78 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, many other post docs at different schools should also have wiki pages. While I agree the person has had some successes but hasn’t made any contributions that warrants a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:94 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it currently stands was not written by the subject. Primary sources are commonly used for biographies of scholars. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even discounting publications where the subject isn't the first author and only completed her PhD a couple of years ago and far from being a full professor, seems to have a surprisingly strong publication citation record to pass WP:NPROF. Plus a bit of media attention from Forbes. I see nothing obvious to suggest was editted by the subject. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure: I started this page. Extraordinary citation record for such an early stage researcher. May not hold a tenured position yet, but there are tenured professors on here who have less impactful and cited work. I presume the person who nominated the page for deletion is just jealous of how successful Liu is, as this is the first time they have ever contributed to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mantaka666). Jesswade88 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:*@Jesswade88:: FYI, I am not jealous and I am not even in her field. I submitted my opinions as a scientist, not because the person is my "friend". Here is a list of other female alumni from the same lab with tenured positions and they do not have wiki pages: Feifei Shi, Lili Cai, Chong Liu, who have contributed much more to the field with many more first authored publications. I am surprised the author has no clue about impact of first-author publications vs being listed as a co-author in a lab that publishes so frequently. If the author is going to make pages like this, she better make sure it is fair and not promoting her friends.
Keep: The nominator has not provided any valid argument for deleting this article. Liu's work Reviving the lithium metal anode for high-energy batteries has got more than 1900 citations. This is enough for me. It also seems to me that this nomination has been made in bad-faith. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited offer very little evidence of notability. I have failed to find anything better. Maproom (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF C1. While the subject is very early career, the GS citation record is strong enough that I still think it is an unambiguous pass. Comment that on the most highly-cited papers, the first two authors (including her as 2nd author) are marked as contributing equally. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Nominator - @Mantaka666: and IP 134.134.139.78, I'm failing to find any evidence in article history that the subject of this article has used it for autobiographical or coi purposes. Could you please post evidence here (or strike that part of the nom?) Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) I also wanted to say I find it odd that the nominator has only made two edits to the encyclopedia since they created their account two days ago. Both of the edits involved nominating this article for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after conducting a WP:BEFORE search, I'm convinced this young researcher meets WP:NPROF per criteria #1. Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navvulata[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find any except this which still isn't helpful. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler Kessel[edit]

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

Being one of the oldest student newspapers in Germany sounds like a claim to notability, but a search reveals very little coverage in independent sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Gymnasium (Germany) is equivalent to a high school in the United States. The long history indicates there may be something, but I'm not too confident we'll be able to find it, especially since de:Kepler Kessel doesn't really offer us anything. If we don't, per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, the page should be redirected to the institution it serves, so we should create a stub for the high school based off of de:Kepler-Gymnasium Ulm and point it there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Cordless Larry (talk · contribs). Honestly, being one of the oldest student newspapers sounds really cool - but I couldn't find any secondary sources to verify the claim or pass the article through WP:GNG. Shame :(OfficerCow (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have said redirect to the gymnasium (since redirects are cheap), but the gymnasium doesn't have an article. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babangida Ruma (youth activist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Babangida Ruma is salted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just removed all the promotional content. There's basically nothing left. This article has qualified for speedy deletion three separate times, and the article was recreated under a different name. Given that the author is named Mrniger (talk · contribs), the clear indication in their original drafts that English is not their first language, the obvious (formerly) promotional nature of the article, the (formerly) cited blog posts written by the subject, and the provision of details only the subject could know, my guess is Babangida Ruma is the author of the article. And that he wrote the three previous articles (same account), which were all deleted. OfficerCow (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: How did this pass AfC? OfficerCow (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OfficerCow: It didn't - the author moved the draft into mainspace themselves. By the way, I agree with your assessment! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks! that's... an interesting bypass. Also, I agree- this article should be salted. OfficerCow (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail to establish notability; might as well WP:SALT this as well due to history Spiderone 12:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable; should probably also salt. Eagleash (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, hes done stuff but nothing that brings him over the wikinotableness line. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Typical self-promotion page that does not meet any of the relevant notability criteria. FalconK (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, meets none of the criteria for notability. Might be a case of UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamajathakudu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi (1989 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early, if anyone has an issue with that I'll reopen. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevana Jyothi (1988 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 10:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subsequent edits, including by the nominator, show that this does pass WP:NFILM at least Spiderone 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO. The film won two state-presented Nandi Awards ([31]), Best Comic Actor and Best Playback Singer. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award Winner. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

God Father (1995 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Itzy. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryujin(singer)[edit]

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

Fails in passing WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Itzy - no evidence of notability Spiderone 10:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMG, alternatively redirect to Itzy. Abdotorg (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG & WP:NMG. - Tatupiplu'^talk 19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Itzy and Protect against recreation. My vote is a bow to anyone who cares about alternatives to deletion, but I would not be surprised if someone tries to recreate the article no matter what we do with it. The singer has no notable history before joining the group, except for a couple of minor media events that can be described briefly at the group's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Ashley yoursmile! 10:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to E. V. V. Satyanarayana. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chevilo Puvvu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find many. Only a few sources which state it is E. V. V. Satyanarayana's directorial debut, but bombed. That info could very well be at E. V. V. Satyanarayana's article. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E. V. V. Satyanarayana while covering the info there. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E. V. V. Satyanarayana. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Sources in the article are not WP:SIGCOV adressing the subject directly and indepth for GNG or WP:NFP/WP:NFO. WP:BEFORE showed promos, directory listings, interviews with actors, etc, but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the film) directly and indepth. Northing properly sourced for a merge and Wikipedia is not IMDB. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Concerns about systemic bias are possibly justified, but cannot be dealt with in individual AfDs; a broader discussion may be warranted. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joo Laka Taka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am worried about systemic bias concerns of the attempts of the past several weeks to mass delete older Indian films. Reviews of these films may exist in other languages and in non-online media, given their age. This film seems very easily verifiable and it seems to be that likely coverage *exists*. matt91486 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Harden (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page has 2 entries, neither of which are known as "James Harden". A hatnote at James Harden deals with any ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This disambiguation page has 2 entries, neither of which are known as "James Harden": The full names of those two entries are "James Harden" variants, so they are plausible search terms. The two "see also" entries are also plausible misnomers or misspellings from "James Harden" per MOS:DABSEEALSO.—Bagumba (talk)
Note that the hatnote to which I refer is this one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that hatnote does not include the DAB's "see also" possibilities.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 valid entries - nothing to be gained by deletion. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to James Hardin. All entries at James Harden (disambiguation) besides the basketball player are "see also" type entries because none of them are known as "James Harden". Since we have a phonetically identical disambiguation page, they can be listed in the see also there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added even more names to the page that could possibly be confused. Plus, the disambig reduces clutter atop James Harden. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nineveh Dinha[edit]

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

Not really seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. The list of 2006 Edward R. Murrow Award winners doesn't list her or even Yuma. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable journalist. Starting the first online women's magzaine in a state is not a sign of notability, especially when you do it well over a century after the first women's magazine was founded in the same state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's a journalist. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sita Ram Goel#On Christianity. Sandstein 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hindu–Christian Encounters, AD 304 to 1996[edit]

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

A self published book by author owned publishing company, lacking third party RS coverage. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Reference used in the article are also self published. Tagged for notability issue since July 2020 Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm running into the same issue here as with the prior books nominated. The book has been discussed in RS, however the issue is that they're more discussed in relation to Goel's overall views. Technically this could maybe muster up enough to squeak by notability guidelines depending on how we look at this, but to be honest unless there's sourcing that I can't locate (definitely possible given that Google doesn't always properly crawl Indian sourcing and potential foreign language sourcing) I think that this should at most be a redirect to Goel's page if anything is kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged in some info to Goel's article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sita_Ram_Goel#On_Christianity. I'm going to argue for a redirect to the section on Goel's beliefs given that the article does seem to have a mild stream of views (about 1,000 - 1,300 a year). It's not super heavily visited, but I suppose heavily visited enough to maybe argue that there are people purposely seeking this book out. I have no problem if the end result is to just delete, however. On a related note, is it possible to determine how many of these views were from people deliberately searching out the term or people clicking through from another article? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ReaderofthePack, The redirect view tool tells me that that the page views are directly for the target, which is only possible due to a direct link. Considering that Goel's page got 2.5K view last month. It is likely that ~100 (per month) of the viewers of Goel's BIO also click the link for Christian Encounters book out of curiosity. The trivial view count doesn't add much to the notability question though. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if an appropriate merger has been done. It is not the job of WP to review books. If this were an article about the subject of the book, but with an end-date of (say) 1600 or 1700 - before William Carey's time, it might make a useful one. But an article on a NN self-published book NO! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the job of Wikipedia to have articles on books if they are notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author, there are presently not enough/have been unable to find enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK ie. multiple reviews on this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. The book itself doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, or pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Conti[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stub about non-notable film maker; BEFORE finds plenty of hits, but very little secondary, and nothing that comes even close to SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER notability. (Also possible autobiography, but that's just by the by.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find independent coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a severe lack of reliable sourcing in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Janssen[edit]

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

Nice resume, but I am not seeing anything here that adds up to notability, nor am I seeing anything but sparse mentions in news reports (amid a handful of other clearly different people with the same name). BD2412 T 06:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this resume. The article makes no assertion of notability, and I can't find anything that might help to make one. Fails WP:GNG utterly. FalconK (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:MILL. This snuck through in the wild west of 2006. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enola; or, Her fatal mistake[edit]

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

No evidence found of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. An obscure book written by an non-notable author, with only trivial mentions in bibliographies (e.g. [32], [33]), and (possibly apocryphal, Wikipedia inventions or citogenesis) mentions of indirectly inspiring the name of the mother of the guy who named the Enola Gay ( [34], [35]). Even if being the namesake of Enola Gay Tibbets is true, notability is not inherited, and any salient details of this entire non-notable novel can be summarized in a footnote in Tibbets or the Enola Gay article. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is NOTINHERITED at second- or even third-hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, no reviews found on this book, presently an interesting footnote in the Enola Gay article but even that statement is unsubstantiated (that Tibbet's mother had been named after the heroine of a novel), and the addition of the note appears to be conjecture - "Enola; or Her fatal mistake(sic) (1886), by Mary Young Ridenbaugh is the only novel of the period to use "Enola".". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tibbets states in his book that his mother was named after the heroine of a 19th century novel, but did not know what the novel was. The reference to the book was added to the Enola Gay article in a footnote by Bzuk in 2010 [36]. The possibility of citogenesis makes it hard to verify with reliable sources now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Tibbets' even a reliable source on the reason his mother was named Enola? He may have assumed this without ever being told. Even if his mother told him this, she was not the one who chose her name. For all we know this is a conceit his mother developed at some point after her birth, and her parents chose the name for other reasons. I do not thin either way it would make this book notable. Even if the plane was named directly from the book, that would not make the book notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when your one claim to fame is inspiring the name of something indirectly because the thing was named after a person named in a way affected by the work your have zero claims to fame at all. Not every book published before 1900 is default notable. That is the only criteria that would make this notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumeyaay (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODAB situation with a primary topic. The only other article ambiguous with "Kumeyayy" is Kumeyaay language and that can be linked from a hatnote. The dab currently has a number of other entries for WP:PTMs (like Kumeyaay Highway), and a long list of subtribes of the Kumeyaay, neither of which actually belong on a dab page. Conceivably, the list of subtribes could be salvaged by moving the page to something like List of Kumeyaay tribes, but that would duplicate the much better list already present in Kumeyaay#Tribes and reservations. – Uanfala (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the language, the college, highway and maybe the lake are all legit entries. The rest of the entries, however, can go. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an important disambigulation page that is useful and necessary for readers of the encyclopedia and researchers; it helps in finding similar titles and it aids in searches. The d-page helps resolve potential conflicts due to ambiguity that could arise when searching for one of the many tribes of the Kumeyaay. All of the "people" listed under the heading "Kumeyaay people" within this page are federally recognized tribes of the Kumayaay Nation (even if the tribes (band) name does not start with the word, Kumeyaay). (They are not "subtribes".) The language, college, highway and lake should also remain. If it's not broke why fix it? Netherzone (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is there only to provide navigation to articles who topics may be referred to by the same name, it's not an article and its job is not to provide content. – Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Uanfala, I understand the definition of a disambigulation page, which is why I did not call it an article in my contribution above. You kindly misunderstand me if you think I am saying that it should provide content. However, it stands to reasonable common sense that some users of the encyclopedia would deploy the search term "Kumeyaay", when looking for a distinct band of the Kumeyaay. Landing upon this d-page would help them navigate. Not everyone in the world is knowledgeable in the idiosyncracies of tribal names. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give that a reader is looking for a specific band of the Kumeyaay and they don't know that band's name, then if they decide to use the search term "Kumeyaay", they will arrive at the page Kumeyaay. Which is exactly what they need: they won't have any reason to click through to the dab page because the information they need is already there in the article. And that's where it ought to be: a list of tribes of the Kumayaay Nation is a subtopic of the Kumayaay Nation. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The various bands are already listed in Kumeyaay. Anybody searching for them would normally go there first. I've deleted them from this page, as that's not what a dab page is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd keep the bands, but regardless, the language, college, highway and lake are all valid entries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No subgroups in Sioux (disambiguation), Apache (disambiguation), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are on Cherokee (disambiguation), Seminole (disambiguation), etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-450[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; not the first, best, only, or most popular in its ctegory; just another model number from Yaesu; promotional, of interest to a tiny community of specialists and undue minutia for a general purpose encyclopedia. Wtshymanski (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-04 ✗ G11

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, although if there is a list article in which this information could be merged to, that would be great. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Guyton[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOLDIER. Almost all of the sources are primary. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'm pretty sure the subject is notable; WP:SOLDIER is not the be-all and end-all and a quick check shows a good number of potential sources (and he may be notable as an author for Air Base). But the current article as it stands is...yeesh. WP:TNT may be the best option here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:SOLDIER but seems to have SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG but needs rewrite as the page isn't written in WP style and most of the current sources seem to be Guyton himself. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable per WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as an author and test pilot because sources cover him. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mario Jump 83! 10:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys–Packers rivalry[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Originally proposed with the rationale "There is nothing here to suggest an actual rivalry between these two teams. The fact that they are both teams in the NFL, even in the same conference, means they are bound to play each other on a semi-regular basis, but a rivalry needs some true enmity between the two teams, and none has been demonstrated here." Although content has been added recently to substantiate the periods when the two teams were each other's direct competition for titles and a couple of notable games between them, there is nothing to suggest that there is an actual rivalry between the teams where each of them looks for their matchups against the other when the schedule is released. When they meet each other, there is very little in the way of discussion about continuing a rivalry or igniting old hatreds. It's just another game in the NFL schedule. – Pee Jay 00:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. The article is very poorly sourced and a search of Cowboys Packers rivalry does not provide much in establishing this game as a "rivalry" game. Just because teams have played in the playoffs several times does not automatically make them rivals. Frank Anchor^Talk 11:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page for non-existent rivalry. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced evidence that this is an actual rivalry. Ultimately this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a major rivalry and it needs reliable sources. Royal broil 05:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dunno, I mean, these two teams do actually have a lot of memorable and significant playoff meetings between them (things like the Ice Bowl, etc.). I get that the article right now is significantly under-developed, but that could very well be an editing issue, not necessarily a deletion issue. We already have rivalry articles for Cowboys–Steelers, Packers–Seahawks, and Cowboys–Texans, and this would appear at first blush to be of similar significance to at least the fist two of those, albeit with many of the significant meetings here occurring in the pre-Internet era. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article is in bad shape, that is not a reason to delete. I once was pretty hesitant about these "rivalry" pages, thinking that they only really should exist for clear and obvious, long-standing rivalries (i.e. Chicago Bears-Green Bay Packers rivalry). But now I look at them in the following lens:

Longstanding? - Yes, 60 years old
Same conference? (so they have and will meet often) - Yes, both in the NFC and have met 37 times.
Notable games against each other - Yes, Ice Bowl, 3 NFC Championship games, met 8 times in the playoffs, The Dez Bryant "No-Catch Game"
Reliable sources identifying the fact that a "rivalry" exists? - Yes: "these two storied franchises have competed in some of the NFL's greatest games" (CBS Sports), "Let’s Admit That the Packers Are the Cowboys’ Top Rival Now" (Texas Monthly magazine), "5 Most Memorable Games Of Green Bay Packers-Dallas Cowboys Rivalry" (Forbes), "Aaron Rodgers' domination of Dallas has changed tune of Packers-Cowboys rivalry" (Sporting News), "Cowboys, Packers set to resume storied playoff rivalry" (Associated Press).

In addition to the articles above, there are a number of print sources on Newspapers.com that reinforce the rivalry status (Wikipedia Newspaper.com accounts no longer provide access to a large amount of these articles, so I can't clip links, see here for the preview of the results of the search): Packers-Cowboys rivalry has history (Arizona Republic), Another big game in Packers-Cowboys rivalry (Manitowoc Herald-Times), The latest 4 decades of huge games: Packers-Cowboys rivalry rich (Northwest Herald), Long Packers-Cowboys rivalry renewed Sunday (Messenger-Inquirer), Packers-Cowboys rivalry has lost some mystique (The Times Leader), and that's just a drop in the bucket of articles on Newspapers.com specifically referencing a rivalry existing. Note that these sources are from across the country, not just local or regional to Wisconsin or Dallas area.

A few important points here:

The rivalry was more dominant in the 60s and 90s, but just because it wasn't recent doesn't take away from its notability
I have provided 10(!) reliable sources in just 30 minutes of searching
The article needs to be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.

PeeJay, Frank Anchor, Sabbatino, Kinu, Royalbroil, 777burger, Ejgreen77, please take a look at this new information, if you can, and see if it is sufficient to alleviate your concerns about the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "longstanding" and "same conference" argument are baseless. The two teams have only played 37 times, including the playoffs, over 61 seasons. This is three games in five years on average. Under the current schedule rotation, the two teams are only guaranteed to meet once every three seasons, though they can meet more often (if they finish in the same place in their divisions the previous season) or meet in the playoffs. Under the current scheduling rotation (since 2002), they have met only 12 times in 19 years (including two playoff meetings). Also, just because tams have been in the same league for 60+ years does not automatically make them rivals, as you assert. Many other teams have been in the NFL/NFC since 1960 that do not have rivalry pages with the Cowboys. Thank you for presenting the impressive list of sources from a wide array of sources including top national authorities on NFL coverage (such as CBS and the AP) and other national sources. ~~While I stand by my delete vote, it is a "weaker" delete as these reference are much better than what is there now (namely nothing).~~ Frank Anchor^Talk 21:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor appreciate the re-review. I'm not necessary saying that all teams that existed for long times are rivals, more importantly that they have been playing each other consistently (3 games in 5 years, as you mentioned) and that they have played in a number of notable games. There are a number of NFC teams that the Packers have played for years, but aren't considered rivals (Arizona Cardinals, for example). I think ten reliable sources specifically calling two teams who play each other as "rivals" is sufficient to establish notability, but respect your opinion. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have improved, copyedited and added 6 sources to the page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, in addition to the sources that Gonzo fan2007 has already found. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, when these are added to the page, that would be about 16 reliable sources establishing notability for this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the two teams aren't "rivals" in the traditional regular season/inter-conference sense, I believe there have been played enough significant games in NFL lore to consider it such. At least 5 with the 1966 NFL Championship Game, the Ice Bowl, the 1995 NFC Championship, the Dez Bryant "No-Catch" Game, and the 2016 NFC Divisional game, as well as a Thanksgiving game from 1994 with a memorable Jason Garrett comeback. I believe the sources are also improving, as noted above. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to weak keep per the sources presented by User:Gonzo_fan2007 and User:Ejgreen77, provided these are incorporated into the article. These sources range from the local to the national level and establish that more than just a few reporters consider this to be a "rivalry." While I have concerns about the "longstanding" nature of the rivalry, since they have only played 37 games over the course of 60+ years and the teams have often gone multiple seasons at a time without playing each other, there are some notable meetings between the two and several other "rivalry" pages (across the NFL and other sports) have much less sources to go by establishing that a rivalry exists. Frank Anchor^Talk 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Anchor I have incorporated all of the available sources that were presented here. Note that some of the Newspapers.com articles above were duplicates (the same Associated Press article posted in different newspapers). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep not a traditional divisional rivalry, but these teams have had enough significant meetings to establish the legitimacy of this rivalry, as demonstrated by Ejgreen's sources. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments and coverage presented by Gonzo and Ejgreen are persuasive. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are RS's calling it a rivalry but I don't think of it as a rivalry in the traditional sense. I think it's just the nature of two old teams having been in the same league for so long that they've been forced to play each other often. Does that form a rivalry? Regardless, there are sources that indicate it's a rivalry so weak keep and perhaps add the additional RS's found from this discussion to help bolster this article. HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a case to be made that this is a historic rivalry, even if it has abated to nothingness in the current period. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I hate the Cowboys, and am generally leery of "rivalry" articles of teams who are not in the same main entity (in college football that would be league, in MLB, the NFL, and the NHL it would be division - I can't speak to sports leagues in other countries, since I don't follow them), this is one which would meet the specifications of a rivalry. Successful clubs (which the Cowboys and Packers both have been over their histories), who play as frequently as they have in the post-season tend to develop rivalries among the players and their fans. Similar to the 49ers–Giants rivalry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy dleete. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 122.60.65.44 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario)[edit]

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

Chateau Royale was AFDed in 2019 and closed as redirect to List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario. Then this year, Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) got created and is likely referring to the same location. The previous discussion concluded that this location fails WP:NGEO and nothing major has happened there so it still likely fails WP:NGEO. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content that the previous AfD discussed can be seen here. Perryprog (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Barber National Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced and not inherently notable, Part of a series of Skip Barber-related articles created 10-15 years ago with poor sourcing and dubious notability. Kieran207 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources would help establish notability, the article has NONE. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom.Kieran207 (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thick Records[edit]

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

According to the label's own website: "Eerily Quiet Since 2007. We had a good run." Would appear to fail any or all of WP:NMUSIC, WP:CORPDEPTH and so on. Like it or not, for entities established established in the mid-1990s and onwards, WP:GNG amounts to a kind of internet beauty contest, and this otherwise handsome candidate appears have missed the reliable sources pageant. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was created in 2006, but wasn’t tagged for WP:NCOMPANY until October 2020.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At worst merge to Music of Chicago#Rock. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Thick Records owner Zak Einstein: Thick Records continues to operate as a catalog only record label. The information listed is current and accurate. THICK albums remain relevant and available online via streaming services Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, et al. This Wikipedia page serves as a historical reference and reminder to newcomers that there is an existing record company called Thick Records. Please do not delete. 2603:8000:DA00:50C8:65DB:9EDF:6F6D:DF66 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable label. I congratulate to the IP address though, for admitting that he is the owner. Many IPs who have a conflict of interest does not admit it. But anyways, the fact that they are present on Amazon Music, Youtube, Pandora and Spotify does not qualify them for a WP article. They are not reliable and anyone can have an account there. And just because they exist does not qualify them for an article either. People have to learn the existence of this label from somewhere else. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Jonathan Sharp (musician); all of the nominated albums will be redirected there. This AfD has been sitting for an unusually long time and is now mostly moot. The move was suggested by one of the voters and endorsed by others; the move to Sharp's article was already done a week ago with further improvements being made there already. Further discussion has become unnecessary.. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Mind (band)[edit]

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

~~Another one of now-indeffed User:Soul Crusher's creations.~~ Created by IP in 2005, but Soul Crusher created all of the album pages. Sources are an interview and some unreliable sources, and I can't find anything better. doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Also bundling in the pages for the band's albums, as those will go if the band article does.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. At first I also thought this is just another of Soul Crusher's non-notable bands, but yeah, this is much older. Still not notable, no reliable sources are presented and I couldn't find one. The band had an article on plwiki as well, but there are no sources whatsoever. Non-notable band, and the albums can go as well (not just because they are created by SC, but because of them being non-notable). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I have a note on the talk page about converting this to be an article on Jonathan Sharp, which will cover both these projects (New Mind & Biotek) plus allow expansion on his other activities. Additionally, disagree about notability on the basis of #5 in the notability guidelines ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).") - his works have been released on both Zoth Ommog and Off Beat which are significant indie labels for electronic/industrial music. I frankly don't care about the album pages but I do think that Jonathan and his works and collaborations are worth noting. But, yes, it can use more sources - I added what I could find readily (Sonic Boom was an important pre-blog Web resource and Culture Shock was one of many print scene magazines from the 90s), but in general it is a difficult proposition to find sources for underground acts from pre-modern Web times; in that sense it is still a work in progress. -- t_kiehne (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the band fails WP:NBAND, and the albums fail WP:NALBUM, and they all fail WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move the New Mind article to Jonathan Sharp (musician), which will require a "round robin move" due to clashing redirects, then Redirect all of the nominated albums to Sharp's article. In the vote above and also at Talk:New Mind (band), Tkiehne has argued that Sharp may have enough notability to qualify for his own article, which I find fairly persuasive. That article can include Sharp's various projects and albums under multiple names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite as above as Sharp's entire music history may well be notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - The move has already been done, due to outcome of the discussion at Talk:New Mind (band). That probably should not have happened before this AfD was done, but the article under discussion is now called Jonathan Sharp (musician). That article may be viable if Tkiehne and others clean it up with a focus on Sharp's larger career. The albums listed in this AfD can be redirected to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gurdas Maan. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jogiya (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, nothing I research supports Notability. Kolma8 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG or redirect to Gurdas Maan. Not sure Roti (album) is notable either. Spiderone 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gurdas Maan: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Coin (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daljit Singh Baath[edit]

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Nothing came out on WP:BEFORE. The article essentially unchanged since 2014 or so. Nothing indicates notability of this BIO. Kolma8 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one film directed by him we have an article on has no sources in that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTOR, WP:GNG. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films. Consensus was clearly not to keep. Most of the rest was to redirect. Any editor who feels there is worthwhile, cited material which can be merged into the target is free to do so. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Marvel Super Heroes: Maximum Overload[edit]

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

Non-notable webseries, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:GNG. Chompy Ace 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lego Marvel Super Heroes: A section can be added to this page and it can be redirected. Could have probably been done per WP:BEBOLD ~RAM (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films, only coverage I could find in reliable sources was the paragraph-long blurb already in the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lego Marvel Super Heroes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the films list specified by Devonian Wombat and Rtkat3, not Lego Marvel Super Heroes, which is an unrelated video game. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Lego Marvel Super Heroes~~ List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films: The article is all plot OR, no sourced content to merge. // Timothy :: talk 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list article per Etzedek24. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (again): To closing admin: If redirected, it should go to List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films, not to Lego Marvel Super Heroes which is a separate video game. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Newnham[edit]

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. NCRIC falls under WP:NSPORTS, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a database source of the two games played, which is specifically excluded by WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NSPORT/WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the nom incorrectly states that this person only played on one match, which is not the case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, as if that effing matters. Immediately after that it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Well guess what? For this person, they don't. So he's not notable. It also says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so any apparent contradictions show the idiocy of this page, and we should default to the basic expection of significant coverage beyond a database entry, not your mass-production of perma-substubs. Reywas92^Talk 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong here, as the article meets the notability requirements. And please don't make attacks against me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the SNG page. But you're wrong, because even with "or the sport specific criteria set forth below", it doesn't meet the SNG because the SNG explicity excludes the use of only databases for notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet WP:GNG by a mile. One way to show that a SNG is not valid is establishing consensus at AfDs that people who meet the SNG (NCRIC in this case) should be deleted or redirected anyway. An SNG is not intended to be a free pass for people not meeting the GNG, but a way to rapidly check if people are very likely to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Norton. Since this person apparently played once for two different teams, there isn't even an obvious redirect target. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: - would you support a redirect to the Border list, as Newnham played for them first (1903/04), before playing for Transvaal in 1920/21? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would have no objection to that. And on reflection a second redirect called Lewis Newnham (Transvaal player) or something like that would be agood idea too. Reyk _YO! 15:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless such redirects have the same target, it gives the impression of two different people; better to have a note in each list explaining the appearance in the other. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect to an appropriate list, but the best target is not readily apparent. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. As well as two first-class matches, he also played in three non-classified matches against touring sides, two of which were Test sides (Blythe got him out in 1906 and a chap called Stevens did in 1922...). In the circumstances I think I'd want to know more about the existence, or otherwise, of written South African sources before I committed to deletion or redirection (I would be happy to redirect to the Border list - although I'd be happy to discuss the logistics of this). In other words, we should give this one a bit more time and maybe make an appeal to the South African wiki project. I very rarely suggest this course of action, but in this case the matches against touring sides suggest to me that there's potentially something here that's worth giving the time to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has been somewhat expanded. Sammyrice (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article has been expanded somewhat since the original nomination for deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately wide-ranging databases (WP:SPORTBASIC), inclusion in an indiscriminate list and WP:ANCESTRY.COM are insufficient to establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to Cricketarchive. Are these links just database reports of the match (results, statistics), or are they e.g. reprints of newspaper reports from the time? If the former, then indeed nothing in that expansion helps to establish notability. If the latter, then things may change (but then it would be better if the references said something like "Cape Newspaper, 12 March 1926, via Cricketarchive"). Ancestry is a site that probably should be avoided instead of used. Fram (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are just scorecards. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a bit of coverage of him in UK newspapers, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that there could be quite a bit more in South African newspapers, as he was quite prominent in some of the games in which he played. Johnlp (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give us some references (and if possible links) for the coverage in UK newspapers? Fram (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by this comment. The "Supplement to the London Gazette" just says "Lewis Cyril Ashby Newnham. 12 Nov. 1917" among scores of other names. How in the hell is this "coverage"???? Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per the rationales set forth by Blue Square Thing and Lugnuts. Meets WP:NCRIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palladium jubilee[edit]

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

I initially tagged this G3 based on the sourcing being a video game's Fandom page, but there are at least two recent attestations to this term [37] [38]. Unfortunately, I think both are foreign-language writers relying on English Wikipedia; the term was added in May 2019 [39] by Egull with no source. No reliable sourcing found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete irrelevant and no sourcing. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this is a thing. It is listed on Anniversary so that needs removing if we decide this is false. Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 22:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, citogenesis issue (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Taylor[edit]

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

Non notable corporation. No significant coverage in reliable sources found in English. Need help evaluating current Italian sources and searching for more. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail NORG, reads like spam, referencing is poor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text describes a tutoring firm going about its business, publishing materials and maintaining membership of trade associations. Neither these nor the special mention for their "Language Snacks" product with 4 others in a non-notable competition in 2014 is sufficient evidence of notability, nor are searches finding better. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vybe Together[edit]

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

Delisted app that will be quickly forgotten (no enduring notability). WP:NOTNEWS ViperSnake151 Talk 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. 777burger ^{(LET'S TALK)} 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough by any means. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only small mentions in secondary sources for one issue, before becoming irrelevant. WP:NOTNEWS Sbberner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no significant coverage to pass GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sinamika[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable production covered by multiple reliable sources [40][41][42], essentially meeting WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All reliable sources from a wide range of sites. Production work completed. Notable project (as per involved cast and crew members). Neutral Fan (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William LeGate[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Coverage of this dude is predominantly coverage of his company. No personal coverage in independent reliable sources. Another promotional article about a startup founder. FalconK (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Kawas[edit]

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

Although this biography is WP:BOMBARDed with sources about things other than the subject, the total claim to notability here seems to be getting on a magazine cover once, being put on a "top 100 Arab businessmen" list, and getting a business magazine's young entrepreneur award. The article is promotional and the subject lacks significant independent coverage in WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject had short term notability and is likly not notable per WP:NTEMP. Very little about the actual subject.ThinkHat (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Analytics[edit]

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

Not notable. Google search gives only the official site and profiles on sites like Linkedin, which are hardly reliable sources. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see substantial independent coverage, just funding announcements. The COVID-tech mentions are pretty trivial, and it's not at all clear how that's related to anything else the company supposedly does. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but as of now, it is not notable enough. LeBron4 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Surprised this one was relisted! Missvain (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of superstitions[edit]

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

This list would be endless and there's simply no criteria for this list. I have put this list into AfD after an RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_10#List of superstitions. Thanks to Rosguill for WP:NPASR in the AfD nomination of this list. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reasonable way to control this list to something useable and readable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm responsible for most of the content by adding it from {{Superstition}}; other efforts have been remarkably incomplete. At this time, I agree that there's no way to make a reasonable list here; many entries are folklore, some are urban legends, and some have no real connection at all (Witch window). {{Superstition}} will also need some serious work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Split Superstitions are a very common and important part of cultures throughout the world, and so I don't think the article should be deleted all together. However, I do agree it is way too broad and so I propose it should be made into a lists article that splits into different lists for countries and/or cultures like list of superstitions in canada, for example, similar to articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_cities_by_country and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_sphere. Most of these articles do not exist yet so they could just be red links for now. Pladica (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2020 (AST)
Delete uncontrollable undefined and unencyclopeadic. It would be 100 years bad luck to keep it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list all articles about superstitions, thus aiding in navigation. Category:Superstitions exist already. If something can be put in a category it can be put on a list. Changing it into a table so it could also include information such as more specific region of origin and what it is, would make it far more useful than a category. Dream Focus 13:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books cover superstitions ie. Superstitions (Haining, Sidgwick and Jackson, 1979), Dictionary of Superstitions (Opie, OUP, 1989), Encyclopaedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult Sciences of the World. (Daniels, J.H. Yewdale & Sons Co, 1903), plus serves as a navigation aid for wikireaders. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Coolabahapple,User:Dream Focus

Also, I seriously doubt moral right of arguments against keeping this list article since Wikipedia has not done away with concept of Lists, Lists seem to serve ease of access and reading function to readers compared to templates and categories, for example Category:Indexes of religion topics has almost 12 list articles and such many does exist on Wikipedia, so why subject of Superstition can not have a list?

Bookku (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous arguments; notable topic, articles requiring improvement are not articles requiring deletion. Can see argument for splitting, as a full list could be unwieldy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. This should now be saved. Touch wood. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets CLN/AOAL for a navigational list. Needs work (I did a little), but it could be a valuable navigation aid. // Timothy :: talk 11:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sodha[edit]

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

No content at all. May not fulfill WP:GNG Heba Aisha (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article used to have content - mostly unsourced, but it could be a starting point of verification. Now it's all removed - even the sourced part. There's this reliable source and this that actually prove the clan exists and has a history. I have also found a mention here, here and here. Enough for a stub - needs attention of a local. Less Unless (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page history doesn't matter. It's a one-sentence article. Most viewers aren't gonna look through the page history, if it's even available to them. Currently, the content in the article currently is one sentence, so it doesn’t matter what sources we have available. It's that there is no content in the article. The page could have also been nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A1. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 03:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails notability. Yeti Dai (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already explained. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No substantial coverage, not notable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunSaluter[edit]

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

Highly promotional page, possibly UPE, written with reference to virtually no WP:RS (it cites the IRS exempt organization list to show its existence, and the company's own website a whole bunch). Pull quotes like "While maintaining lean operations, SunSaluter's funding sources are diverse". Completely inappropriate, and would need considerably more than profile-level coverage in reliable sources for an article to exist. FalconK (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — As correctly stated by @Falcon Kirtaran, this is a promotional article, possibly even G11 eligible about a non notable organization with literally no reliable sources discussing them.Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Curbelo (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The airport fails WP:PTM, which leaves only two good entries, one of which is at the base title. This doesn't seem to fall within the guidelines of what is a useful dab page. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the oulying and not really needing disambig airport entry is removed, then this falls under WP:TWODABS, and so is not needed. Headnotes can separate and redirect the politician and footballer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anantara Kihavah Maldives Villas[edit]

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

Non-notable luxury resort. Article creator was banned for using Wikipedia for advertising. The vanity awards listed on the article are a dime a dozen and do not indicate notability. Citobun (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if we can get any participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article on a run of the mill resort Spiderone 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Aayatya Gharat Gharoba[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are too many of those films been mass-inputted into WP. Kolma8 (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do you speak Marathi, Donald? Can you even read its script? If not, your WP:BEFORE search is near-worthless. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found evidence that this passes NFILM or GNG? Spiderone 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence to support your vote Johnbod. Otherwise, it, too, is near-worthless. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are providing the evidence by dodging my question. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:, that is a strange argument. Can I kindly ask you to explain yourself to support your vote? Kolma8 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't at all - the nomination rationale is inadequate - he hasn't done a proper WP:BEFORE. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was you standing behind me when I did the BEFORE search? You have no clue what I did to research this before I nominated. I do, however, know that you did nothing to explain you 'keep' vote and what YOU found to support it. I suppose it was nothing, since you can't back it up...which actually kinda supports my delete nomination. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have declined to say you speak Marathi, or any other Indian language, or even understand the script. So it's clear you don't. So the BEFORE search on which your nom is based is all but worthless. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the evidence available, this fails NFILM and GNG and that's all that matters. People need to also WP:AGF. Spiderone 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this just to see if some magical Marathi BEFORE sources appear.

Also, please be respectful and don't troll.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a good Marathi movie, but the sources are all WP:MILL rather than the sigcov I'd have. As a native speaker of Marathi, I did run a check, but meh, there's all tabloid-like attention that doesn't work as SIGCOV. There might be some old reviews or other coverage from 1991 in Marathi print media, but I have no idea how to find that. Based on what I can see, the movie fails WP:NFILM. Java Hurricane 06:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per JavaHurricane, as a Marathi speaker. My own searches did not turn up anything to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "BJP takes Telangana by storm, gets 19.45% vote share - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[2] Geetanath, V. (2019-05-23). "Double delight for BJP in Telangana". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[3] "Is BJP's By-Poll Win in Telangana's Dubbak a Political Game-Changer?". The Wire. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[4] Ramakrishnan, Sriram. "TRS' missteps, the BJP's rise: How southern politics is going to change forever". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[5] P, Ashish (19 November 2020). "Post Dubbaka win, BJP goes all out to expand base in Telangana ahead of GHMC polls". India Today. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[6] Dutta, Prabhash K. (1 December 2020). "Hyderabad civic polls: Why BJP made local election as its big launchpad in Telangana". India Today. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[7] Sadam, Rishika (2020-11-18). "Buoyed by Dubbaka bypoll win, BJP looks for bigger role in Telangana". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[8] "OPINION: Greater Hyderabad municipal polls and the rise of communal politics". The Week. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[9] "BJP hopes to make Telangana inroads with Hyderabad polls, but TRS confident 'divisive agenda' won't work". The Indian Express. 2020-11-30. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[10] "BJP's relentless rise, Congress's continued fall". Deccan Herald. 2020-11-13. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[11] "After Telangana bypoll win, BJP turns challenger to its catalyst, TRS". The Week. Retrieved 2020-12-17.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]