Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 09	November 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIM-HIGH trial[edit]

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

Single study (WP:MEDPRI, without notability for its own article, study never completed due to failure of the project, almost no pages use this page -- "Pages that link here" in Namespace: Article or Talk only shows a couple pages; there hadn't been maybe 90% of the other links until it was disseminated through automatic AfD lists. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individual primary studies are not usually given their own articles. For example, a random science article like Cholesterol has almost 100 in-line citation references to studies (most of the 94 references on that page), but none of those studies are ever given their own articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 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, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-08 ✍️ create

Delete as it was a single study without being notable for starting or ending. Hun ter 01:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we close and delete on this one? Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by admin Deb, under rationale G11. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Member.buzz[edit]

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

The article is sourced from a selection of non-independent sources. The one reliable source is the WFMJ-TV article, though it reads like a PR piece. Lots of non-third-party sources can be found via Google but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant spam from company employee, and fails WP:WEB. Captain Calm (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 10 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dug Hill, Kentucky[edit]

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

Apparently a subdivision of some sort. See [1], [2]. Apparently a school there, see this. There's also a Dug Hill Road, although the "community" isn't marked on pre-GNIS topos. Rennick doesn't mention it. The school fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and subdivisions are generally held to fail WP:GEOLAND. Not seeing a WP:GNG, as none of this is in-depth coverage. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Well, it's not a subdivision now, and I really doubt that it ever was: the location given is that of the truck scales for what appears to be an open pit coal mine to the northwest. This is another supposedly-from-Rennick GNIS entry that just doesn't make any sense. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 11 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Briarfield, Kentucky[edit]

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

Not mentioned in Rennick. Looking up the coordinates on the topos brings up an isolated hill with some oil wells on it. Most coverage is for people with the last name and a Briarfield Road, although I found one mention of a Briarfield School that matches up with the supposed location of this Briarfield. Beyond that, it's just passing mentions of the road. I don't see how a small batch of hyperlocal coverage can pass WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete This one is just a mistake of some sort in GNIS. The earliest topos do not label the spot, and the later ones all label it "Barrett Hill" in the physical feature font, because it's a hill. I checked the article coords against GNIS and they are the same, and are only barely different from the GNIS "Barrett Hill" corrds. No topo labels the spot "Briarfield". There's another Briarfield, also marked historical, in another county, acto GNIS, but the source given is likewise Rennick. At any rate the article we have needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 11 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Peter Carruthers of Holmains, Chief of the Name and Arms of Carruthers[edit]

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

the family may be notable , but i see no reason for saying that he is, and there are no sources to support anything except his genealogy DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the concern. The Lord Lyon confirmed Simon Peter Carruthers of Holmains as ‘Chief of the Name and Arms of Carruthers in august 2019. This a legal statement which can be found here. His genealogy to hold the title was confirmed after 22 months and two court hearings.

http://courtofthelordlyon.scot/index_htm_files/CarruthersDecision.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce1324 (talk • contribs) 21:43, November 10, 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The article's more about his family than it is about him, and what there is of the latter shows no notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, we do have an article on the family: Clan Carruthers. It looks like it needs considerable editing, but they are notable as a family. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so no need for a "redirect" from say Simon Peter Carruthers to Clan Carruthers as a possible wikireader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why would anyone outside the family think to look him up? We're not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree, around 500 page views of the clan page in the past 30 days probably reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:BLP1E. It snows in Scotland. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person is not individually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Sagar[edit]

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

This article constitutes original research. Playing the lead in one film. Couldn't find any references (reliable) that prove notablility. All article references do not contain large sections about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nom is blocked --
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete one lead role, and bunch of routine/PR coverage do not establish notability. The subject fails both WP:GNG, as well as WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tulip[edit]

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

29 year old entrepreneur who is not notable, no SIGCOV. Mvqr (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , probably speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PEOPLE applies. Notability with references to independant news publications. No deletion. Scoboco (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, the sources in the article are not entirely 3rd party. A google search only shows me their linkedin and some guy with the same name who murdered his parents JW 1961 Talk 18:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only 3 citations and even those don't deserve to be citations as they fall foul of guidelines. Hun ter 12:28, 17 November 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. Numerically, it's a clear case. In terms of arguments, the "delete" side doesn't contest the topic's notability but argues that it is amply covered in other articles, making this a content fork. While I don't quite get the "POVFORK" argument (the content doesn't seem to take Trump's point of view, but generally identifies the topical allegations as baseless), the argument that we seek to avoid duplication of content remains valid. Likewise, the argument that we shouldn't give undue prominence to fringe views (as reflected in their assessment in reliable sources, not political discourse) is well-established in our practices. Sandstein 12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election[edit]

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

A POVFORK of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, covered at pages including 2020 United States presidential election, List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election and Stop the Steal. Lawsuits filed belong at the lawsuits page, while the unsubstantiated claims made outside of the legal process can be covered at the election and Stop the Steal article, among others, as reliable sources unilaterally reject that such claims are plausible.

Created, no doubt in good faith, by a new editor who I would recommend to stay away from such hot topics until they have more experience (as their contributions are less likely to be undone/unsuitable in other areas). — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — definitely requires a stand alone article for this notable topic Nikolaih^☎️📖 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC) edit: since there've been complaints about !voting, I'll add on the fact that none of the articles mentioned by OP can assimilate the information in this one, with the possible exception of 2020 United States presidential election-but with so much media coverage and attention, it is definitely is deserving of its own article. POVFORK does not apply.[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate WP:POVFORK GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per GorillaWarfare. Jr8825 • Talk 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Delete with no redirect – this article is redundant as we have a more encyclopedic article on this conspiracy theory at Stop the Steal. If there is any unique, reliably sourced information here that passes our WP:GEVAL and WP:NOTNEWS policies and isn't already included in Stop the Steal, it can be merged into that article. I don't think there's much, though. The factual information on the court cases is summed up by our list of lawsuits, and the Stop the Steal article summarises the fringe theory. Per GEVAL/FALSEBALANCE we should omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and much of this article is unduly legitimising baseless claims. I don't see the value of a redirect and it would be inconsistent with other political conspiracy theories (we don't have a redirect from "Barack Obama citizenship allegations" to "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", for example). Jr8825 • Talk 17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Any legal challenges arising from the election can be mentioned on the election's page. --WMSR (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK and the suggestions of other editors. Herbfur (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election#Voting process and results, while as a POVFORK this should not be kept around, it is a plausible search term, though it should be deleted before redirecting to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. While the fact that Trump did not concede yet and is still claiming fraud is quite historic, having a separate article listing all these allegations seems pointless. BeŻet (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK, yadah yadah yadah, you know the drill. FoxLacy (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to have overlapping information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and the fact the "presidential" is needlessly capitalized. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would suggest a WP:SNOW close. Blatant WP:POVFORK Zingarese talk · contribs 21:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zingarese: There is no deadline, so I don't see why we shouldn't let the process play out.
Who knows, maybe the discussion could result in a transwiki to Conservapedia (lol) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention below, this is an article about a breaking event, which has to be handled cautiously. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I see from this discussion is editors suggesting deletion for the same couple of reasons over and over again and giving no other reason, with one exception from GP (that is not an issue solved by deletion). This is not how Wikipedia works, please see WP:!vote and WP:Democracy. While some editors have offered suggestions on redirecting etc., I will suggest that, unless you've got something to add other than "per nom", "per others" or "per [user]" etc., there isn't any point really adding another !vote. I would also point that the one "keep" supporter made claim that without evidence is baseless, and I would recommend they provide some evidence. Remember, this is a deletion discussion, not a deletion vote. --Ted Edwards 22:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming support is necessary for a WP:SNOW closure, which is probably a good idea here due to the breaking news / sensitive nature of this topic. When such an outcome is obvious and one person has clearly stated it it is not necessary for every contributor to re-iterate it, but it's necessary for them to weigh in to make the overwhelming consensus clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: There is no reason why SNOW closures need a high number of participants, for a SNOW closure (specifically an WP:AVALANCHE closure) what needs to be shown is there is no good reason why the article should be kept or the article egegiously breaks a major policy e.g. WP:HOAX, and thus consensus will always be in favor of deletion. If 20 people supported deletion and 2 supported keeping, the consensus would still certainly be for keep if the 20 people were talking nonsense (to be clear, this is not what is going on here, I haven't seen any bad arguments, just unsubstantiated ones, (many) repetitive ones, and some comments that aren't arguments and also add nothing). --Ted Edwards 03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GorillaWarfare. Merge with 2020 US presidential election. This article could be easily covered in the election article. Mgasparin (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. Even if we were going to have a separate article, this title would be inappropriate for it, since it implicitly lends credence to a conspiracy theory in violation of WP:FRINGE; it would be like having an article for "Alleged irregularities in Barack Obama's citizenship." --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POVFORK full of unreliable sources and credulous nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: at 13-1 plus the nominator (me), I would recommend that this is snow closed by an uninvolved administrator, because the page is on a subject which has been garnering hundreds of thousands of views per day in recent days, and it is thus a highly critical educational and reputational issue to have a POVFORK waiting around for seven days. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Considering very few arguments have been put forwards for deletion (all I'm seeing is POVFORK being repeated by most editors), there are only three comments (including your opening one) that actually contribute to forming a consensus on deletion, although several comments do make important comments about where the info on this article should be etc. after deletion. This is not a vote, this is a time to come up with arguments and discuss them. So saying there's a majority of 14-1 is irrelevant. However, if there are concerns about this article remaining in the mainspace for any longer, perhaps you could ask an admin to move this article into the draftspace, to allow for the discussion to accumulate more arguments. --Ted Edwards 03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed for a snow close is not a wealth of distinct arguments, but strong consensus for an argument. For instance, if there is consensus that a page is a copyvio (a much simpler thing to establish) then a page is deleted. One reason is sufficient to delete a page. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that one argument can be enough for SNOW, I made a similar argument (using HOAX as an example). I was merely pointing out that you appeared to request SNOW because many more editors support deletion than oppose it, which is irrelevant for consensus and therefore SNOW. For SNOW, you need to show that the argument(s) for deletion outweigh any arguments for keeping in such a way that consensus could only ever land for deletion. --Ted Edwards 17:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very obvious example of a POVFORK and dumping ground for conspiracy theories. Ugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GorillaWarfare. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... I think any claim in this article that comes from a WP:RS should be considered for inclusion in the 2020 presidential election article BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real irregularity is Trump's unhinged behavior. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge WP:RS into main article. I agree with BlackBird1008 that there are some RS worth saving here. This article itself should be deleted, with no redirect. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: This article should only exist if the word "Alleged" can be dropped from the title. *Actual* irregularities should have an article, but accusations with minimal if any evidence shouldn't have articles. I think we need to wait for some of the GOP's claims to go through the courts, and if there is nothing, then it doesn't deserve its own article. Just my 2cents. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll argue the contrary view, since I don't see it put, above. I came across this article soon after it was written & raised POV and WP:N flags, and opened discussions on the talk page. As currently written, it still has major POV issues, is not neutral, lacks context, includes unreliable sources - a whole litany of bad things. However I think the article's scope, as encompassed by the title, is an appropriate and notable self-standing topic for Wikipedia, and one not well served in any of places listed at the top of this discussion.

As the article amply illustrates, very many allegations are being made; there are reliable sources asserting that the allegations are being made. 2020 United States presidential election has no room for all of the detail. List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election is limited in scope; it surely overlaps with this one, but omits much which can fit here. Stop the Steal is a subclass of the set of issues discussed in this article. Given the mismatch of scope of these with this article, I don't think we have a POVFORK on our hands.

The raising of supposed issues appears to be the current modus operandi of Trump & the GOP, and on an unprecedented scale. Whilst 2020 United States presidential election can handle a high-level overview of the stategy, I think there is value in documenting each reliably sourced allegation, notably in terms of what the allegation was; who made it; information supporting or rebutting the alegation; and where pertinent, any outcome, such as in a court case arising from the allegation. If we keep the article, there is a great deal of work to be done. I don't think the poor quality base from which we start is reason for deletion; instead, given the subject matter is notable, it is reason for improvement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's refreshing to see an honest comment like the one above. For whatever it's worth, my vote leans towards Keep. Fraud allegations should indeed not be covered in this article, only the "irregularities" should, which are different in essence, the latter are actual occurances that happened in this election and were reported by sources on all sides of the political map. Searching for this title yields millions of results, thousands a day. If the article is deleted, some cotent should be merged into articles on the election in specific states, such as the 2020 United States presidential election in Michigan. The only conspirational thing here is sadly the censoring efforts. 2Justice (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is definitely a POVFORK and FRINGE. Reading the article, you can see right away what it is. I’ll add RS to the list of reasons this should be deleted. Come on now.... Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POVFORK dump from a low-edit account. Some of the article is worth saving elsewhere, but it's otherwise painfully not proofread. Nate • (chatter) 06:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to keep with expansion. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2020 United States presidential election conspiracy theories. Once conspiracy theories get widely distributed online to the point of being discussed and refuted by reliable sources, as they have here (E.g. This subject is on the front page of The New York Times as I type this: [3]), it is Wikipedia tradition to have an article debunking the conspiracy theories. As just one example: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories Samboy (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this guy -- the phrase "alleged irregularities" is not clear. As an example, Donald Trump is alleging that "undervoting" is irregular when that is common. He is alleging irregularity in something that factually happened. But when Donald Trump alleges that his poll watchers weren't allowed to watch, that is a lie (according to his lawyer), so he is alleging something which would actually be irregular, but didn't factually happen. "Conspiracy theories" seems to be the common phrase used for this sort of stuff, much more appropriate than "alleged irregularities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.117.246 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no doubt needs to be reworked almost entirely, but it's an important topic that is getting global attention and probably deserves its own page at this point Anon0098 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Keep & Merge Draft:Conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States elections into this article: I believe that the edits made since the nomination have removed most of the content that violated WP:NPOV and there is a discussion at the talk page of the Presidential Election article to not add all of the claims of fraud, while there is a pending merge discussion at the 'Stop the Steal' article. The claims of fraud and fact checks of those claims are being reported by reliable sources. The only issue I see above is that the text was too bias and was following a point of view not supported by sources at the time. I will say that I agree with Bilorv that the lawsuit content belongs on the 'List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election' article instead and thus the lawsuit content should be merged there, if there is anything here that has not been covered there. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Amended the link to merge. Also a note that since it is now a draft article, it might contain some content that needs to be deleted instead of being merged.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant and unique material into Stop the Steal, then redirect this title to List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: There is absolutely nothing POV about this topic. In the aftermath of the election we have been flooded with certifiably false assertions of fraud. There were countless signals for months that this brazen disinformation strategy would be deployed should the election be close or lost. The article should include content from 2020 United States presidential election#‎False claims of fraud and Stop the Steal and should not be relegated to a mere list article. If there is any POV at play here, it's by folks who would prefer that this massive sham not be appropriately documented. soibangla (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge with List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election, which is undue weight, along with Stop the Steal which is all part of the same think. I'm slightly inclined to agree with soibangla, this is in fact ongoing that can't be consolidated very well in the main article, but people really need to quit with the tendency to jump to creating lots of undue forks to document every single little speck of BS in such detail per NOTNEWS. The title should probably be changed if kept to clarify these are all bad-faith lies, not legitimate allegations. Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are required to handle it like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where we have sentences like No evidence supports the conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims with sources and A number of sources have published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists with sources as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks because you ended up giving me an idea to help with the undue weight and I was able to find sources for it. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all of the WP:POVFORK comments. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POVFORK, WP:MILL, and WP:FRINGE. We don't address every haunted house, UFO sighting, or one of Donald Trump's 25,000 lies. I would not oppose a very selective merge back to List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this haunted house or UFO sighting is one of the most discussed topics in current news, then yes it is addressed.

Delete due to WP:POVFORK, and being an example of both WP:MILL, and WP:FRINGE.TH1980 (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, Wikipedia has similar articles for other tragedies but also give arguments that disprove the theories. Keeping this article, but also disproving the information would be the best course of action. Not WP:FRINGE as many Trump supporters believe it as has been reported widely by the news, so no solid mainstream view. Not WP:MILL either, as election result questioning to this extent in a US election is unheard of. Hun ter 18:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE and WP:RSUW. This article lends undue weight to the idea that there was widespread voter fraud in the election (regardless of the author's intended purpose), which has been categorically disproved. This topic has already been addressed in other articles as discussed above, and no more credence should be given to it. Haydenaa (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A POVFORK of conspiracy theories. // Timothy :: talk 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article didn't exist people would be repeatedly trying to create it. This article is aptly named "alleged", because our news cycle is being dominated by allegations, and I am glad to be able to come to wikipedia and see them debunked. Mathiastck (talk) 22:24, 17 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken of the VNC[edit]

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

This isn't a topic I'm incredibly familiar with, but it's been in CAT:NN with no good sources since 2012. My WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up any significant coverage in anything that looks to me like an RS, but I'm also unfamiliar with technology-related sources. If you can find significant coverage in RS, I'm willing to withdraw this. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reviews or significant coverage. Seems to fail WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 12 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Attraction[edit]

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of Soul Crusher's NN industrial bands. The article contains only unreliable sources. No evidence of notable members or labels. Notability tagged since Sept 2020. Couldn't find anything reliable during a Google search. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in the article are unreliable, primary, or non-substantial. A little here, but we need more. Incredibly little to be found about this band. Honestly, every single one of Soul Crusher's articles needs to be checked for notability - they were apparently autopatrolled before they got blocked, so much could have slipped through the cracks unnoticed. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how many of Soul Crusher's trash are left. I hope there are not much. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Through Comic Books[edit]

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

Over-detailed promotional description of a proprietary product. It belongs on the firm's website. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not even the claim that the hashtag was popular is properly verified, nor should we expect it to be. One brief mention on Wired doesn't establish notability, and it certainly does not warrant this extensive article. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodside Community Church (Baptist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not, and has no other notability. schetm (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC) schetm (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is only a brief mention. Neither is this significant. It looks like a COVID testing site may have occurred there, but that's a bit WP:NOTNEWS at this point. Other coverage I can find is published by the church or by affiliated groups. Not seeing a WP:GNG or WP:NORG pass for this congregation. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hog Farm Spiderone 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing the notability, and the text of the article plainly reflects the POV of the church website which is the only recorded source. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Hog_Farm, WP:MILL, and my own standards.The congregation is over 100 years old, but other than that, there is no factor to make it notable. New York State has many historic Baptist churches, and I have been to a few, but this is not one of them. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 13 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum Lynn[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. Being an upcoming artist with a bunch of views on YouTube is not sufficient to meet the criteria. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no coverage of her and I fail to see how she is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Allmusic staff bio, news pieces, short bit from a radio station, Idolator piece, which is listed as RS at WP:MUSICRS. None of these are particularly long, and the third one may be a bit iffy as I can't quite tell if that's radio station staff or not, but there's just enough for me to lean keep, and there may be more. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the page because I felt the producers on her new album are all noteworthy (tho that passage was removed) and also had a top 40 single and a million views on video. Believe she is worthy of inclusion, but thank you both for taking time to review. askkaty2write (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2020 (EST)
Comment askkaty2write - if you have a source showing that this artist charted, that would meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria #1. That would really put a kabash on deleting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you! I do have one - https://www.billboard.com/charts/adult-pop-songs/2020-02-01 - but I think you must be a subscriber to see the entire chart. I have added it in. 01:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC

Comment Her Facebook page says the song charted at number 49 on the Billboard Adult Top 40. WP:MUSICBIO's point 2 requires only that she "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS appears to suggest that the Adult Top 40 (Adult Pop Songs) chart applies. But doesn't number 49 mean it didn't register on that chart? -Lopifalko (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone equipped to be able to answer this please? I think the answer is pertinent to whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the wrong chart is likely mentioned. I think the intended chart is Adult Contemporary (chart), but I'm only educated-guessing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if I can show a PDF? I do have the top 40 chart as a citation but without a sub to billboard you can't see the entire thing. I have a PDF of that page though? -askkaty2write 14:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you let me know how , or what time line there may be, to remove the possible deletion marker on the page? Thank you. -askkaty2write 00:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This will be left open at least a week from the date of the nomination, so November 17 (UTC time) will be the earliest this gets closed. It could get relisted, which would extend the time that this discussion stays open (and the deletion tag stays up) by another week. I personally think the article should be kept, but I'm not seeing an overall consensus to do so at the moment, so unless something changes in the discussion, expect a relist. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion as well as assuming WP:AGF charting on a national Billboard chart, passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Hog Farm and Atlantic306. Are we able to have a consensus? Or it doesn't work like that? I appreciate your guidance through this.askkaty2write 13:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given we have a revised chart position of 35, rather than 49, which satisfies WP:MUSICBIO's point 2. The sources do not satisfy WP:GNG, but notability has been established by the chart position. (FWIW, the sources we currently have are a) KTLA on YouTube; b) a primary source from Lynn's own Music As Therapy organisation; c) a primary source from Billboard; at Riff Magazine, a paragraph about the subject where there are paragraphs for each of a number of other musicians, in "Your Weekly New Music Discovery" — I don't know whether Riff Magazine is a reliable source; d) a feature in Phoenix New Times, a publication that only "publishes daily online coverage of local news, restaurants, music and arts, as well as longform narrative journalism".) -Lopifalko (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I missed the fact that Hog Farm had unearthed the Idolator piece. Though it's not in-depth coverage, being predominantly an announcement, and a quote. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:37, 18 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nemat Mokhtarzada[edit]

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

Does not qualifies WP:ARTIST Serv181920 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eddie891, my name is Nickolaus Hines, and I'm the new managing editor at Matador Network. I'm sorry to see that there was some bad sourcing and promotion done in the past. I'd like to revisit the page deletion and see if there's a way to have a Wikipedia page that has proper sourcing? I'm not aware of how or why the link spamming was done in the past, but I believe the publication has enough influence in the travel industry and as a resource for travelers and creators that a Wikipedia page is warranted. I'm including a few authoritative sources talking about the site below, and I'm happy to discuss this further or provide more information.

Here are recent links to the mention and awards from the North American Travel Journalists Association: https://www.natja.org/awards/annual-competition/2021-awards-winners/ and https://www.natja.org/news/north-american-travel-journalists-association-announces-29th-annual-award-winners-for-excellence-in-travel-journalism/

Awards in 2020 from the Society of American Travel Writers, including gold in a travel writing award and honorable mention for best travel writing websites: https://satw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lowell-Thomas-Awards-2020.pdf

An interview with founder Ross Borden in the communications industry publication Campaign: https://www.campaignlive.com/article/campaign-chemistry-matador-network-ceo-ross-borden/1724029

A 2019 press release about the ad partnership between Southwest Airlines and Matador Network: https://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-and-events/news-releases/2019/08-06-2019-170115812

A Q&A with founder Ross Borden in the publication Bay Street Bull: https://baystbull.com/ross-borden-ceo-matador-network/

An interview I did with the publication Voyage Denver about joining on as managing editor: http://voyagedenver.com/interview/daily-inspiration-meet-nickolaus-hines/

A 2015 Fast Company story that talks about Matador Network: https://www.fastcompany.com/3042140/why-hotel-legend-chip-conley-is-building-a-lonely-planet-for-festivals

The Crunchbase profile for Matador Network: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/matador-network Matadornetwork (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matador Network[edit]

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

Sources are terrible, I'm not finding anything via google, and the creation/maintenance is just a long series of redlink SPAs, many of whom have edited other articles about corporations in the digital media industry. I think this is undisclosed paid editing and probably socking, possibly an organization that is hiring experienced editors, as the tone/language don't set off alarms. —valereee (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. Blatant spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is clearly meant to be promotional through ref bombing. Nothing about it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional and spammy as well due to the tons of references to the same few sources Dq209 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yunqi Partners[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NCOMPANY. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and passing mentions in financial news, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Declined four times at draft without improvements, suggesting that draftifying again won't help. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking the proposal part of an AfD proposal means... what? (Just curious.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough material to show notability , and nothing at all which would meet the standards of WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, despite the valiant refbombing effort. Also possible COI issues. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill company that doesn't have anything notable about it. Despite the clear ref bombing attempt by someone that is likely a COI editor. Nothing about this passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. References are terrible. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable Chinese spam, published by a SPA in in one edit. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 07:48, 17 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cobb[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. References seem to be press-releases. Little coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why this page is again in the AfD. An administrator already removed it from AfD once. This article meets the requirements and the notability and if it is found to not meet those then other pages within the same scope should be deleted such as Johnny Herrera(racing driver) as they have raced the same series and Cobb has more sources than Herrera. Cobb is a licensed World of Outlaws driver and that licensing can be located within the World of Outlaws administrative filings. World of Outlaws is the highest level of dirt sprint car racing one can reach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingFan247 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent coverage to pass WP:NBIO. (including "This page has been added to search engine indexes" in an article is a good way to make one's WP:PROMO intentions known...) 1292simon (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone advise on the comparison to the other racing pages such as Johnny Herrera (racing driver) that I continue to use as an example and the references of coverage he has? Almost 100 percent of racing coverage for sprint cars in America is what appears to be a press release layout. However sprint car and midget magazine along with speed sport news are independent sources and the primary sources of American sprint car and open wheel racing media. Secondly a video reel of the TV series showing the credits for his acting contributions can’t be used on here as a reference. Thirdly as for the section that was added referencing search engine indexes was added after reviewing the articles for creation section talking about indexing pages for search engines. This is my first article creation so I am trying to address everything I can prior to creating anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingFan247 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- "Other racing pages" are not relevant. WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NCREATIVE, everything under WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. I'm not seeing a single independent source that is anything more than transactional about his racing career. 75.174.138.211 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(An outside article reference Has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingFan247 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog dude and fails WP:SPIP. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We keep articles on sportspeople, and racing drivers, if they compete in a top-level competition for their sport, and WoO is the top level for sprint cars...except Cobb has never raced n WoO ompetition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding how you can say Cobb has never competing in WoO competition. There is an article from the WoO that is about Cobb and Danny Lasoski competing in the WoO in 2014. He is also a current WoO driver as far as licensing from the WoO Dirtcar sanction is concerned. A copy of that license can be provided if someone wants it.

(post closing comment for future clarity) A license does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 FC Schaffhausen season[edit]

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

Page created by a perma banned editor. No evidence of WP:GNG and does not fall within the scope of WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is correct, do not deleat. The match results are not quite complete, but they are all correct. The linked players in the article are correct and the listed yellow and red cards are correct. Okay, in the article there is no introduction text, there is no explaination to the seasons events, there are no texts to the seasons endings, but the details stated are correct. Again as negative points, there is no end of season league table and the cup winners that season are not mentioned. Okay, to the history of the club's seasons, there are no previous seasons and no following seasons, but the details of this season are correct and with a litle bit of work we could make this article self explanitory. Perhaps I am a little bit biased because I have contributed to the contents within. But, there are very few articles over Swiss football and there seems to be some sort of attack against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few days. Deleting the page would not improve the documentation of Swiss football, but would reduce any sort of coverage, thus making future coverage more difficult. Please leave the page and make additions to improve it. But please don't worry, if the page is deleated, I will continue my contribution to Swiss football anyway. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The team didn't play in a fully professional league. Please can you provide sources showing significant coverage to demonstrate that this passes GNG? Also, putting two articles that fall outside inclusion criteria up for a deletion discussion hardly constitutes an attack so please don't cast aspersions. Spiderone 07:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Thanks for the imput. As suggested to me, I have copied both pages into my sandbox. But as far as I can see from the imputs to date, there is not going to be a decision, because there are not all that many inputs so far. Actually the Swiss Challenge league is a professional league - even tho some little clubs have a few semi-professionals - but Schaffhausen doesn't count to them. But from the common definition in Switzerland, you consider the Challenge League (as part of the Swiss Football League, which unites the first and second tier leagues) a professional league. Due to this, the Challenge League was allowed to continue to play, quite fast after the lockdown due to the Covid-crisis, while all amateur-leagues were still forbidden. Again, I just suggest that we keep the articles just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if the article is deleated wthin a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Sunday --Huligan0 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS. The article being 'correct' is in no way a justification for it being kept. Number 5 7 11:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The topic is probably notable, but the article currently doesn't reflect that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 12 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center[edit]

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

Article does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.

Article does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT.

The article does not meet WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

The article does not meet the criteria for hospitals at WP:HOS essay. WP:HOS states:

"Articles about hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard, which requires, as an absolute minimum:

that the hospital has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources
that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital)
that at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area."

There is routine, run of the mill local coverage / mentions / directory listings. // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 10 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

River Place Condominiums[edit]

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

Being the 80th tallest building in the state of Georgia is not notable and notability is not inherited from having a notable tenant at one time. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Article does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of directory and routine coverage doesn't amount to passing GNG Spiderone 20:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a cool building, but I can't find a single article that is more than a directory listing. Fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:39, 19 November 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 Legio XI Claudia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legio XI[edit]

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

The article should be deleted because it is a duplicate of Legio XI Claudia Ewf9h-bg (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legio XI Claudia as reasonable search term. I am not seeing anything to merge and the sources are already included at the target article. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legio XI Claudia. Mccapra (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legio XI Claudia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legio XI Claudia. Duplicate, but title bears redirection. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:49, 16 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahi de Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable corporate professional. Didn't find any solid sources to claim that he is a 'serial' entrepreneur or an investor. Fails WP:RS and created by a single purpose account. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As per nom. - non-notable corporate professional. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Zamora[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per this and this discussion. Spiderone 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fast. It was discussed last time, and not deleted because it was "lacking the {{la}} template". It's about time... Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly this was meant to be included by the !voters in the prior two AfDs. If the closer needs a clear policy-based reason, it is WP:BLP1E - Bri.public (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – DarkGlow (✉) 19:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of second overall National Football League draft picks[edit]

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

Unreferenced and does not appear to meet WP:LISTN. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently in awful shape, but there is a kernel of a good list article here. The No. 2 picks have resulted in many all-time NFL greats. In addition to those listed, there's Earl Morrall (1956), Norm Snead (1961), Roman Gabriel (1962), Tom Mack (1966), Randy White (1975), Tony Dorsett (1977), Lawrence Taylor (1981), Eric Dickerson (1983), and Marshall Faulk (1994). Also the occasional bust: Ryan Leaf (1998). And, while not currently present in the article, there's been a good deal of coverage devoted to the No. 2 picks. Examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Cbl62 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was nominated less than 24 hours after creation. Time should be given for this article to develop. I will work on it a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 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 WP:G4. ~ GB fan 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scintilla Iceland[edit]

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

Previously deleted, written like an advert and does not appear to WP:ORGCRIT. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious WP:G4 Spiderone 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 IF it is substantially the same text as the previous version, otherwise have an admin copy-and-paste the references from the deleted version to the current version's talk page and ask editors familiar with Iceland to give their notability assessments. If they say it is non-notable, then delete. If they say it is notable, then improve-in-place or, failing that, DELETE with option to DRAFTIFY if editors not "pushing an agenda" are willing to clean it up. If notability cannot be determined, DELETE with option to RESTORE AS DRAFT if editors not "pushing an agenda" are willing to work on it and submit it through a formal review process such as WP:AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{db-reason|1=MAY be G4 - please delete as "G4" if it is. If NOT G4-eligible please read the AFD and say "not G4-eligible" and copy any references from the old version not present in the current version to the talk page of this version. That will help AFD participants assess notability. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scintilla Iceland (2nd nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scintilla Iceland]]|help=off}} to the page. This should settle the G4-eligibility once and for all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page author, who also authored the earlier version, has been notified and given guidance.[11] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bhopal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD as per procedure as this article has been at AfD before and was deleted. I still don't think it warrants an article.

I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage, CommonFloor and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Bhopal' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is referenced entirely to routine database listings and primary sources which do nothing to evidence notability.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 60m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Delhi, Kolkata and other places with notably tall buildings.

Similar AfDs for reference: Gwalior and Ludhiana Spiderone 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, with the lack of significant coverage by reliable sources the predominant concern. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. There is a lack of coverage about these buildings in reliable sources. LearnIndology (talk) 04:42, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Patel Premium Cigars[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate its own notability, edit history demonstrates it to be a promotional article. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly an advert article and doesn't pass the notability guidelines anyway. Therefore, there's zero reason to have the article. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a news search brings back plenty of hits. An advert (that does not qualify for G11) should be cleaned up and rewritten, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to at least two analyst reports available on this company which meet the criteria for establishing notability. Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Plenty of hits" also isn't a reason because all the hits I can find fail WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content which are the requirements, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that sounds as credible as "I voted for Brexit because I want to take back our sovereignty and make our own laws and stop people coming over here taking our jobs". I note that a Google News search for "Rocky Patel" cigars brings back at least 12 pages of new hits. Per the relevant explanatory note, "searches using Google's specialty tools, such as ... Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles". That some of the results are what Have I Got News For You might consider "special guest publications" such as Cigar Journal and Cigar Affictionado shouldn't matter - indeed, should we not look for expert sources on a topic in order to improve it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that Brexit argument applies. For me, it's like the Remainers keep pointing out the rules and laws but the Brexiters insist they don't apply because they're sure they must be right. But, that said, I have changed my !vote as I have located analyst reports on this company that easily meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are covered, for example, by QYResearch and ResearchAndMarkets and others too. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to add more information from the existing references, which show that teh company has made an impact in its industry and achieved independent coverage in multiple publications over an extended period. I added 2 more of the lounges and referenced all of them in local press coverage, and tracked down the exact year of foundation, the current corporate location, and the reason for the original name. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kamure[edit]

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

A biographical article that fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; he has not played or managed at a level to pass WP:NFOOTY and all that comes up in a search are Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:34, 10 November 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. WP:SNOW keep, no comment on whether SKCRIT#1 or 3 applies. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urheimat[edit]

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

The article itself has an original research template on it; it is even unknown if "Urheimat" is even a real term. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Is this a serious nomination?? It is definitely a real term and one of the core concepts of historical linguistics. Yes, the article is rightly tagged for containing original research, but there are over 140 citations in the article and links to versions in 22 other languages attesting to the fact that this topic is both verifiable and widely used. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC. "It is even unknown if "Urheimat" is even a real term" is a subjective statement. Verification can be achieved with a simple Google Scholar search[12]. The term and the concept are fundamental to historical linguistics; whatever is lacking in the article can be easily fixed with the help of standard textbooks in the field. –Austronesier (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nomination appears to be based on some sort of a mix-up, however I do understand how the nominator had difficulties with verification, for me Google returns garbage results for the term unless accompanied by other relevant phrases. "Homeland" appears to have become a more common term for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How did an article about a major concept in historical linguistics even end up at AfD? – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very well-referenced article; I'm not sure what inspired the nomination. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- well-attested term in the field. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Sejong[edit]

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

Sejong City is still very new and not yet a large city. It may well have notably tall buildings in the future but this is not guaranteed and any suggestion that it is guaranteed notability would be WP:CRYSTAL. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article (it has 4 entries, none of them are notable buildings).
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraper Center do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Sejong' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
Very few significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:OR

Similar AfDs for reference: Gwalior and Macon Spiderone 11:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage. Orientls (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedence and the lack of relevance of this list. Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 13 November 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) (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Somaliland[edit]

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

The coverage of this article does not appear to sufficiently justify it passing Wikipedia:General notability guidelines; In additional the article is blatant hoaxes and intended to misinform and propaganda. SultanSanaag (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article entirely is a hoax, no significant coverage, with single poor and unreliable citation. It implies governance and jurisdiction of a recognized country which again is a complete misinformation and propaganda, it is clear that there no so such thing as Visa policy of Somaliland. All diplomatic relations and Immigration/Visa department is under Somalia a sovereign state within the International Law. HSA777 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've done a research on this topic it's a misinformation with an unreliable citation. None of the countries listed on the article have a mentioning about a separate Somaliland visa policy or have a diplomatic relations with the de-factor state of Somalia here a few examples of those states 1, 2, 3, 4 it's a hoax/misinform please delete. Don.Omaar (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — Don.Omaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This article fails on both WP:OR and WP:GNG. Visa for all Somalis and the requirement are listed in detail on this article 1 or on the Somalia government website 2. Furthermore Ethiopia or any other country does not recognize Somaliland as a country see here, here there has been a plenty of other news coverages to confirm that non-existence of Somaliland and visa policy. SolidMali (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — SolidMali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It is clear that this article meets notability requirements as per WP:GNG. I have added additional reliable sources and citations demonstrating the Somaliland visa process exists and explains how visas are issued. It is clear that the Government of Somalia does not dictate Somaliland's visa process as per sources and claiming this article to be propaganda is not neutral.

Additionally, it's unusual that new users are voting to delete such an obscure article. Moreover, claiming that this article is "misinformation" and "propaganda". As per above, claiming that "plenty of other news coverages to confirm that non-existence of Somaliland..." is also unusual and the closing admin should take this into account.

Many thanks Jacob300 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As explained above, I have added the following sources [13] , [14], [15] and [16] demonstrating the article's notability and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob300 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very strange that a new editor Don.Omaar's only contribution to Wikipedia happens to fall in this AfD, just as the AfD was created. There are more than enough cited sources presented in this article to meet WP:GNG. Also 3 out of the 4 links presented by the other new editor SolidMali do not work. As for the article, more references here specify how Somaliland visas operate, or an even more in depth study from google books here . Ciiseciise007 (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Comment The sources and coverage provided by both keep editors are mere short-term and probably a result of the de-factor state of Somalia promotional activity these are therefore unsatisfactory as to the notability, urged is an overall WP:NRVE regardless. Futhermore, none these sources actual include a resource of Somaliland government immigration/visa policy as claimed, nor are there any from diplomatic relations of visa policy of the countries listed on the article or on those countries .gov websites included.

Consequently, it proof the point of misinformation and that the content only place of existence is Wikipedia, a clear case of political agenda of the de-factor state which itself is WP:SOAPBOX. Finally, the original editors account has been blocked indefinitely due to a confirmed WP:SOCK case, it is for this reason alone why the article entirely is a hoax/misinform and should be closed with Delete. Somalia does not have a separate visas handling for any state within the country including Somaliland as per the Somalia government website here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSA777 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above comments, the article appears to meet WP:GNG as there are sufficient sources cited in the article that indicate that there is a working visa policy [17] [18] [19]. I would caution other editors to maintain neutrality and refrain from using terms such as "hoax" and "propaganda". Koodbuur (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note This page was not properly created nor listed at AFD. I have fixed this page and am adding to today's AFD listing. ~ GB fan 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most fervent objectors crying "hoax" and "propaganda" are all relatively new accounts who seem unable to comprehend the idea that a political entity can have policies even when it does not have international recognition as a sovereign state. Get over your nationalism, Somaliland issues visas as the sources well confirm. To say so does not mean Wikipedia is somehow endorsing separatism. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is nothing to suggest that the sources are unreliable and the topic clearly meets WP:GNG. I can't see a reason for deletion Spiderone 10:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There is a long consensus on having political and legal articles about de facto states, e.g., Politics of Transnistria and Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets GNG and there are no convincing reasons to delete. // Timothy :: talk 04:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel this is obviously a notable topic and it is sourced to meet WP:GNG, the "hoax" claims above seem to say that the state of Somaliland is a hoax, not that this inaccurately describes the state's visa policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any amount of propaganda that is published on Wikipedia does not reflect the reality on the grounds or in Somalia as a whole. Somaliland is not recognised by any country in the world and this for last 30 years and it claims to be a defector state, which is what invalidates the Visa_policy_of_Somaliland or a process. Somaliland is a region within Somalia which already has a visa policy for it's citizen and they use the Somalia internationally recognised passport. A visa as per the article is an official document that allows the bearer to legally enter a foreign country and that something Somaliland is not so a possible case of WP:SOAPBOX.

Reply: I have no opinion on the conflict (except the violence should stop), but I see that the UAE, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Africa, Ethiopia, Djibouti, South Sudan, Zambia, and Kenya (with possibly others) accept these documents. If they are accepted for international travel, the policy of the issuing power is notable.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ "Somaliland Passport is now a Legal Travel Document in the UAE". Https:. Retrieved November 15, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
^ "Somaliland: Zambia accepts Somaliland passport". Https. Retrieved November 15, 2020.
^ "Breaking News: Turkey Accepts Somaliland Passport". Https:. Retrieved November 15, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
^ "UAE Starts accepting Somaliland Passport, The first person travels today - Horn Diplomat". Https. Retrieved November 15, 2020.

Delete As per the original research, this article has many issues as already mentioned above and the citation references provided are all from an opinion based platforms such as wordpress/blogs etc. Please remove it.Sonkoor (talk) 18:30, 17 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherona[edit]

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

The only criterion that this band meets under WP:NBAND is that it has briefly charted. The guidelines state that this means they may be notable, and I'm not convinced that this alone gets them past the post. I can't find any significant coverage of them online, so I'm putting this out there to see what other editors think. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this reliable source here shows that they have had an album chart in the top twenty of Germany's national chart, the top ten of Austria's national chart and the top thirty of Switzerland's national chart, so passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 2. They have also released two albulms on major labels - Sony, and Columbia which meets another criteria of WP:NMUSIC which strongly indicates they would have received significant reliable sources coverage particularly in German, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Dlopst[edit]

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

Not relevant, never played on a professional level. XaviYuahanda (talk) 10:45, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our insanely overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too low-tier player. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG for football players Shahoodu (talk) 07:57, 16 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talview[edit]

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

Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy CORPDEPTH. I could only find trivial coverage such as fundraising, interviews and press releases. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, textbook case of not making an encyclopedic article as outlined at WP:ORGCRIT, especially the part that talks about standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. - Bri.public (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a briefly active editor which has attracted subsequent promotional WP:SPA edits. Although they've been around for a number of years (apparently as long ago as 2012) Talview still seem to appear in start-up coverage such as this (March 2020). Searches find sporadic announcement-based items, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 18 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals Party[edit]

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

Fails notability, seems paid work. Sturdyankit (chat) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability criteria are you referring to? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NORG would apply for a political party or organisation, which it does seem to fail. Most of the references are about the founder and there's no in-depth coverage of the party. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. In the latest election, the party got less votes than NOTA. No significant in depth coverage in the media either. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 07:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: per nom.Faizal batliwala (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: per nom.Edito_Freak (talk) The party and the party chief were mostly engaged in social media campaigns (paid likes and engagements). The article was naively written and was edited by me many times – removed materials without proper reference. I think the page should be deleted because the party failed to make an impression. Votes were lesser than NOTA on most of the seats. 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Onyango[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. The player never player for NT or in Sweden, no sources support that. In fact, most of the article is a mess that's created by copypasting bits from other players' pages and then editing them (very sloppy, just look at edit histoty). --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Seems like a Hoax and one or two sites got duped! This also raises questions about Jeancy1988 who created this. Govvy (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excellent work from BlameRuiner; looks to be a hoax although a fairly elaborate one Spiderone 17:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Delete non notable, fail all criteria

Lynndonald (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non - No sources to support the notabilityShahoodu (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Also, the photo of the player is fake, it's someone's head pasted on top of another player photo. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured the same, but coundn't find the source photos for either head or the shirt by reverse image search to prove it :) --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recon the shirt bit is probably from one of the player profiles on http://www.maif.se/index.php but from a previous season as if you look at the shirts now, there are differences. [20] Govvy (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persima Majalengka[edit]

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

Poorly sourced (supported by a blog site only, the other source keeps returning a timeout so couldn't verify it) stub about a non-notable lower-league football club, fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE, run of the mill type coverage, nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 08:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:33, 10 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines[edit]

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

Relatively insignificant part of Thomas the Tank Engine. There is already a Thomas Wikia where these kinds of things fit better. Delete per precedence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Static supporting characters and others. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About as fancrufty as this similar article that was recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends rolling stock. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Spiderone 10:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seriously, what is with all the Thomas the Tank Engine fancruft? Regardless, I imagine we could just Redirect this to List of Thomas & Friends characters. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not delete this to favour Wikia as that would not serve our readership so well. For example, I happened to read a page of theirs about the Fat Controller which is full of vandalism. We can do this better. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a notable topic and one of the main pages in Wikipedia's The Railway Series collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how it is so notable? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More fancruft that does not meet WP:LISTN, WP:CLN, or have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Very similar to the deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends rolling stock. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm fed up of the anti Thomas deletionism on Wikipedia. We already lost Diesel's article and now the narrow gauge engines, which are fictionally separate from the main line characters are under threat too. The scandal of advert free Wikipedia articles being converted to ad laden Fandom articles must also be exposed. 2A01:4C8:72:A70B:99A2:1D43:3DF7:DB54 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recently reduced the article to it's current state. It had sat for more than a decade with no sources at all, and was full of unverifiable and severely biased writing, often from a fan point of view. As it stands the article is well below Wikipedia's thresholds for quality, notability and verifiability. If no sources have been added in the 13 years since the article was created, I think there is no likelihood that it will ever be sourced or reach the necessary quality to be included. Laplorfill (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as has been pointed out, this is unsourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is completely unsourced. Searches using various terms and variations also did not turn up anything substantial about this grouping of characters that would allow this list to pass WP:LISTN. The "Keep" votes above are asserting this article's importance, but none of them have actually shown that reliable, secondary sources exist, which is the most basic tenet of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse, the three keep votes are (in order): "Wikia is so crap we should do their work for them", "WP:ITSNOTABLE", and "WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT". Reyk _YO! 16:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem like a notable topic for a stand-alone list. does seem ripe for transfer to a Wikia somewhere, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's with all the Thomas the Tank Engine fancruft, indeed? It's obviously a notable show but not everything is notable that is related to it! These things are better suited to the TTTE Fandom Wiki. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is about articles with high quality references and real life relevance, not unverifiable fan research of minor characters. Delete as cruft more fitting for Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TRIVIA and nothing but. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and incorporate into some other Thomas-related article. It seems a little insignificant on its own. Félix An (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a lot of these articles and I do see peoples' effort. But those efforts would be better channelled into creating content that follows Wikipedia's guidelines. One broad article will always pass our quality checks where several non notable articles and lists do not. It's possible to imagine this rewritten as a short paragraph ("The main narrow gauge engines are X, Y, and Z") in an article about the series. Though we don't generally write extended sections (let alone articles) that are exclusively sourced to primary sources, an article with third party sources will always welcome some amount of primary sourced material. I wouldn't object to a summary and merge if someone could find a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Chamkhanov[edit]

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

Footballer whose claim to fame is 2 matches in the Moldovan league. Other appearances are in semi-pro or amateur leagues. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about non-notable footballer with two league appearances in the Moldovan top division. There is only routine online coverage (transfer announcements, database entries) in English- or Russian-language sites. The presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL is not valid when GNG is so comprehensively failed. Jogurney (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient given lack of GNG/coverage. Giant Snowman 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:05, 11 November 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 Blood Syndicate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (DC Comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Atlantic306 with the following rationale "deprod as a character who has a lot of prominent roles in comics, AFD could find sources or it could be redirected until it's improved". Ok, let's see if anyone can find sources to rescue this? No objections to redirect if a suitable target is provided, neither. PS. I was mildly surprised there is no discussion of his name as insensitive/inappopriate anywhere... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blood Syndicate, the only comic title where the character was significant. The membership section already has a small bio. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blood Syndicate - The current article contains no reliable sources, and searching for more did not turn up anything outside of fan wikis and similar non-reliable websites. Redirecting to the article on the comic he was featured in, which already contains coverage of this character, would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Topic lacks sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blood Syndicate, under the title 'Membership' or 'Other characters'. Hun ter 00:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:47, 17 November 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 Batman family enemies. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Film Freak[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Rtkat3 with the following rationale "Perhaps this page can go through AFD instead.". Ok then... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman family enemies. A fairly minor villain. I looked for sources but did not find anything that could pass GNG. Redirecting to the enemies list is a better option than deletion, however. Rhino131 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Rhino131. Not recognizing references that would deliver keep-able. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Rhino131. // Timothy :: talk 15:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LSC, a list of every character atman or any of his allies has encountered would be hugely unwieldy and not encyclopaedic. As this character fails WP:GNG, no reason to retain anything. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an entry for the character in the enemies list. There is no sourced information to merge, but a redirect to the entry which already exists is a better alternative than deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Piotrus, the nom, has withdrawn, with no other non-keep !votes. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Controller[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "too iconic for prodding; take to AfD". so here we go _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was a brief discussion following the nominator's previous PROD on this article: Talk:The_Fat_Controller#Query_on_notability. As I said in that discussion, my concern is that "The Fat Controller" is often used in wider discussions, from The Economist to the Daily Telegraph (and again more recently: Network Rail boss lined up to lead ‘Fat Controller’ rail shake-up"); the nominator queried whether that establishes it as more a WP:DICDEF. I see that point but think there is enough usage, ranging from specific to the Awdry books and subsequent media, through the "Other Uses" listed in the article, to its frequent referential usage in broader discussion of UK rail management to merit a distinct article. (There is also the re-purposing of the character in Will Self's My Idea of Fun, a secondary reuse discussed in various sources such as this.) AllyD (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic figure like Rich Uncle Pennybags. The nomination's assertions are not evidence-based and are false as coverage is readily found: Trains should be run by a 'Fat Controller', for example. As for the PROD, that was disruptive as the process "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. The article is undoubtedly full of what we might characterise as WP:CRUFT that I would argue would be better suited to a fan wiki (like the one on Fandom; other wikis are available), but the subject himself is notable. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above and below in this discussion. This character has become a part of popular culture in a way the other recently deleted Thomas characters have not. This one has enough notability to be kept, though it should be cleaned up. Rhino131 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, per common sense (an iconic character), and per in opposition to the recent and continuing deletion attempts to cull Wikipedia's Railway Series collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is as notable as Thomas himself Spiderone 13:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew and Ally D. Nightfury 14:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The preview I can get suggests some good discussion here, although I can't get the whole thing - He's analyzed as a symbol of capitalism. Less direct mentions here, but the article tends to use him as an extended metaphor. There's more like this. This character does seem to have gotten significant coverage, even in scholarly sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable. There are a lot of TTTE related fancruft here that's better suited to the fandom wiki, but the Fat Controller is obviously notable. He is a main and iconic character. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AFD is not a vote. Please share sources where this character is discussed in depth. All I am seeing so far are few newspaper articles which mention him in passing, none of which contains any analysis to speak of. Academic article found by User:Hog Farm can be assessed through Library Genesis (I can't link it as it is blacklisted, sigh). But most of the discussion there is pure plot summary. Here is the non-plot summary content I was able to find in the article in its entirety (Fat Controller's name is Topham Hatt FYI): "it is prudent to briefly assess the role of Sir Topham Hatt and the show’s setting, the land of Sodor. Sir Topham Hatt (referred to in the UK version as “the fat controller” and made to resemble the capitalist archetype with an iconic top hat and morning suit) was described on the show’s website as “the director of the Railway [who] is responsible for making sure the engines are always Right on Time and Really Useful. He has a firm but kind manner in dealing with the engines and staff, and has risen through the ranks from a railway engineer to his current position.” This description alone implies much about the ideological discourse of upward mobility and worker-management relations. By suggesting that he “has risen through the ranks,” children are encouraged to believe that good manners, hard work, and conformity will eventually pay off despite the sad reality that even with obedience and hard work, few will actually move up the ranks to upper management." That's it. It's not bad, but I don't think this is sufficient to make the subject pass GNG/NFICTION, a few sentences is not in-depth coverage. In the end, al usable content that is not fancruft can be boiled down to one-two sentences - that a single scholar called this character a "capitalist archetype". That's it, as there is nothing else to squeeze from the source. If the article was about him, we could find more, but it is not, this fictional character is just used to reinforce a bigger argument. I am sorry, but we need more and better sources that are in-depth to conclude this character is iconic and notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is neither policy nor guideline – it's just an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community..." See also WP:STEAM. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I think the fact that the character is used in headlines like the ones above are the indicators that the character is iconic: I don't know about other countries, but a British reader is supposed to identify clearly what is being suggested as the responsibility of the new role simply by the description as being like this character. As for notability, I've found a couple more sources just now: "Who Controls the Fat Controller" I can't access all of, but seems to involve an extended metaphor of the FC in relation to corporate heads, and "Doubting Thomas", which I can access and has detailed analysis of the character. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad: Thanks for finding good sources. I could nitpick, but overall we have three academic sources that discuss him to some extend, that seems borderline sufficient. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he is a very significant character within this famous show. Félix An (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man's authoritative presence on his island of steam and unruly locomotives was held up as an avatar to my 4 year old self for want of Piagetesque constructivism No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Although most keep votes above are just WP:ILIKEIT and its variations, sufficient reliable and in-depth sources have been found as well, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments above - I see it has been withdrawn anyway but this one is a keeper for me.GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:28, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pottsylvania Creeper[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). (Also ping User:DarkGlow who requested a speedy deletion here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. There are a lot of articles of this kind worth having a look at deleting on [[Template:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends}}. – DarkGlow (✉) 09:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creation of these articles shows we really need to change the creation process and start making all new articles go through the Articles for Creation Process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbling Brothers Circus[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). (Also ping User:DarkGlow who requested a speedy deletion here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. There are a lot of articles of this kind worth having an AfD on Template:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends. – DarkGlow (✉) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than plot reporting. Nothing here shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho Loma[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). (Also ping User:DarkGlow who requested a speedy deletion here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. There are a lot of articles of this kind worth having a look at deleting on [[Template:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends}}. – DarkGlow (✉) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual episodes do not merit articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moosylvania (story arc)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 10:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stop this now before it grows. Down this path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruby Yacht[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 10:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just getting silly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullwinkle's Testimonial Dinner[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 10:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than plot reporting, nothing showing actual impact justifying a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 12 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louse on 92nd Street[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 10:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to nip this craziness in the bud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 12 November 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 redirect to Darshan Raval. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judaiyaan (album)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE showed no WP:IS WP:RS containing WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in depth, only promotional coverage, artist interviews, directory/database entries. This is a newly released first album so it may be WP:TOOSOON but WP:CRYSTAL applies. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 10 November 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, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wossamotta U[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was previously deleted by a WP:PROD but was just recreated by User:PickleAndPeanutFan, which I think can be seen as contestign the deletion, so a proper AfD is needed (although the restoration was done without the previous editing history being restored; if this is kept then the history should be restored as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable story arc. Per WP:EPISODE, an article for an episode should only be created once articles for the programme and its seasons are created, then notable episodes. – DarkGlow (✉) 10:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mainly listing how not at all connected shows in their own existence were broadcast together. That is not something that we can justify considering a permanent characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:41, 12 November 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 University of Canterbury#Student association and traditions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury University Tramping Club[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Claim of "one of the lagest" failed (cited ref is just a regular listing on the uni's page), also not even mentioned at University_of_Canterbury#Student_association_and_traditions, where it could redirect if anyone finds a single reliable source that would warrant merging something there. There are a few passing mentions, but nothing in the article seems salvageable as the refs are either PRIMARY, likely unreliable, in passing or fail verification. Two months ago User:Schwede66 who deprodded it suggested on article's talk there may be sources, but since then the discussion stalled and the article hasn't been improved. I guess it's time to revisit it at AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that back then, I wrote to the club's president and their secretary. Didn't hear anything back from either of them. So if they themselves aren't willing or able to help, then maybe it's time to apply the nuclear option. That said, would you know any of them personally, Podzemnik? Schwede 66 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_Canterbury#Student_association_and_traditions. Since this article doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG, but a redirect is perfectly fine IMO. The section in the universities article about student associations could use some fleshing out when it comes to what clubs they offer anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many published reports of these folks. Things like https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19340530.2.81 Bear in mind that's in a paper from a different city, the Christchurch (local) news papers haven't been digitised. I have no doubt that there are many, many, offline sources to support this article in The Press. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. We can't assume that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Canterbury: to the appropriate section. imo article does not have SIGCOV for a stand alone article, content with IS RS can be included in the target article. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University_of_Canterbury#Student association and traditions, even if there are sources I don't see this being a useful WP:SPLIT, the main article is nowhere near large enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Canterbury.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Di Bartolo[edit]

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

Footballer who played only 10 games in a league which fails WP:FOOTYN in that it's not listed here, and also per precedence in this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ludicously overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - has one in-depth reference that could be used to expand the article in Adelaide Now but I couldn't find anything else Spiderone 10:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Weidenbach[edit]

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

Footballer who played only 6 games in a league which fails WP:FOOTYN in that it's not listed here, and also per precedence in this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:GNG; does get coverage but not in-depth [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and not enough to build a biography from Spiderone 10:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Elms^super 05:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our already overly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Harvey[edit]

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

Footballer who played only 3 games in a league which fails WP:FOOTYN in that it's not listed here, and also per precedence in this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to get more coverage now that she has switched sports but still not enough for WP:GNG; passing mentions like [26] [27] [28] [29] and then one in-depth source [30] which is not independent Spiderone 10:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:32, 10 November 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 airports in Washington. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trout Lake Airport[edit]

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

Small private airplane base run by a logging company in Washington. In CAT:NN since 2012. I'm only finding routine database entries, so I'm not seeing a way this passes WP:GNG or WP:NAIRPORT, although the latter is just an essay. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airports in Washington.There's no automatic notability for empty fields, even if they're flat enough to land a two-seater on. Reywas92^Talk 07:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Reywas92. Elms^super 05:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding notability, Trout Lake Airport and Trout Lake Aerodrome are very easily confused. Redirecting this article to a list would make it more difficult for a reader who really wanted to know about the Canadian airfield. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can delete that too, unpaved landing strips are not automatically notable, and disambiguation is not a basis for keeping unrelated articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. // Timothy :: talk 16:57, 17 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

177 Franklin Street[edit]

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

An unremarkable building. It is old, like thousands of other in NYC. The sources are all minor massing mentions or relatively recent routine reports of change of ownership. Nothing approaching significant in-depth coverage required by WP:NBUILD & WP:GNG. MB 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC) MB 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MB 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a contributing building to the Tribeca West Historic District and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability. This is a well-written, well-sourced short article. I don't see how readers would benefit by depriving them of this information. Station1 (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the page, so obviously my vote is to Keep. To echo the previous comment by @Station1:, this building received substantial coverage in the LPC report, unlike many other non-contributing, less notable buildings in the same district. It also is one of very few buildings in NYC that still features the markings of the Lindsay, Graff & Megquier foundry on the facade cast-iron elements. This is unusual on its own, as there are only 20 buildings in NYC known to still have the markings from this particular foundry (https://www.waltergrutchfield.net/lindsay.htm). Happy to discuss further and make edits if needed. macgirl (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, question, any heritage listings? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean by heritage listing, but it is a part of the Tribeca West Historic District officially designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, a government agency. Station1 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Station1:'s argument. Coverage seems sufficiently substantial. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:54, 18 November 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. If the memorial he modeled for can be found to be notable, a redirect can be recreated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Browse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable soldier, and the statue he was modelled on is not notable either. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This sorely fails WP:SOLDIER and does not come close to meeting WP:BASIC. I could find no sources showing the subject's notability, thus it fails WP:GNG. Also, the third reference in the article is a mirror site from Wikipedia. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:57, 11 November 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 2024 United States presidential election. Content can be merged from history if editorial consensus supports it. Sandstein 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries[edit]

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

The primaries for the Democratic, Libertarian, and Green parties all redirect to the election page, I see no reason for this to be any different. Until a major candidate declares, I think they should all redirect to the election page. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has useful information at this point. The Democratic party article was also created, but the redirect was recently done: [31]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, I vote to Keep. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion for this at Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#2024_Party_Articles. It may be redirected/returned to draft for now. So many people who want to jump the gun and have every article for future events mirroring current events when there's not a need for them yet, just fill to them with ridiculous amounts of speculation and boilerplate... Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I accepted this article from a draft when it appeared that the Democratic article had also been accepted. The Democratic article was then cut down to a redirect. At this time I am not yet !voting on whether to Keep or to Redirect. We should be consistent as to the two major parties at least, and can then decide what to do about the two third parties. This AFD is an appropriate community forum to decide whether we should have 2024 party election articles at this time or whether they are WP:TOOSOON. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have bundled the Democratic primaries into this nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the utterly speculative nature of the coverage, even if it gets widespread coverage. If moved to draft space, how long would it need to stay there? Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election. A bit premature, but inevitable. KidAd talk 08:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election, currently this article is functionally identical to that, and there is no reason to keep it around as it is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK. It can be recreated in, like, six months or so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's only a couple of years until election season gets fully underway, and there's a lot of media speculation in reliable sources about the Republican primaries already (see for example the suggestion of Trump running again), so I don't think it's too early to have this article. Also, there's opinion polling which is included in this article but not the main article; where would that go if this article is deleted? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - whatever y'all think whether to redirect or keep, just make both parties consistent with each other so even Wikipedia doesn't have an air of partisanship. Whatever we do to one party, we should then do to the other. Primus01 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The primaries articles are now transcluded by the main election article. --Numberguy6 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - since everything is still up on the mainspace, leave it all there. It's not doing any harm.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As to the above comment as to keeping the two primaries pages.conistant...No Look at 2012. Very different everythingArglebargle79 (talk)
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election per Devonian Wombat. There are no candidates yet, so this is WP:TOOSOON. The limited information that this article could contain would likely be a WP:CFORK from 2024 United States presidential election. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pokelova (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pokelova, why? This is not a vote. Please explain your position. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Both articles are premature and should be draftified. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nom failed to provide a reason for the article to be deleted. It's well sourced and quite useful for the reader. schetm (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just insane to create an article so insanely early before anything concrete is known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect, obviously without prejudice against recreation in early 2024 when there's actually anything of substance to say about them. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, and allow recreation once WP:CRYSTAL is no longer met. As noted we're probably a couple of years off. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reports that Trump may soon announce a run for a non-consecutive second term. This makes the primaries relevant even four years off. JJARichardson (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JJARichardson, the primaries are always relevant. But we don't have anything more than speculative content here. When/if Trump actually DOES declare for 2024, THEN we can create the primaries article. And for whoever closes this AFD: I have no objection to draftifying the article until something more concrete occurs. --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the current news, I see no reason to consider this to be non-relavent, I say keep - Navarre0107 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (to 2024 United States presidential election), we honestly shouldn't have these articles as stand-alone, until sometime in 2023. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election. This is way too soon in my opinion. There are rumours of Trump running again in 2024, but they are just rumors as of now.★Trekker (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and merge with the 2024 United States presidential election. I think the same thing has been done for the articles on Libertarian Party and Green Party's primaries, so I suggest doing the same for the Republican and Democratic ones. Keivan.f^Talk 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not enough meaningful stand-alone content yet.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 10:37, 17 November 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 E Nomine. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heilig (E Nomine song)[edit]

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

I dont think this song is notable enough. BlueJag (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think a re-direct to the band page makes more sense. BlueJag (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom; uncontroversial Spiderone 11:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E Nomine - almost certainly fails GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:32, 10 November 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) 07:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Studio School Luton[edit]

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

A fairly short-lived vocational school that did not appear to have any notability. The only sources currently being used in the article are all from its now-defunct official website. Searching for secondary sources does not turn up much coverage. There are a handful of articles mentioning its closure, but even those have very little information on this school in specific, as most of them are on the financial woes of its parent organization in general. Overall, I am not finding enough in reliable sources that would allow this to pass either the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is entirely WP:ROUTINE; no sign of passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG Spiderone 11:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Spiderone says, there's only WP:ROUTINE coverage of this. Which isn't surprising since it seems to have only been around for like 5 years. All the news coverage on it seems to be about it's closing. Which doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG]. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Rorshacma probably found this on the closure - if there's an article discussing studio schools in the UK I would almost suggest a merge there, but there's nothing to merge in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable and WP:ROUTINEHun ter 00:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Somaliland Passport is now a Legal Travel Document in the UAE". Https:. Retrieved November 15, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

[2] "Somaliland: Zambia accepts Somaliland passport". Https. Retrieved November 15, 2020.

[3] "Breaking News: Turkey Accepts Somaliland Passport". Https:. Retrieved November 15, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

[4] "UAE Starts accepting Somaliland Passport, The first person travels today - Horn Diplomat". Https. Retrieved November 15, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]