Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 11	November 13 >

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. Geschichte (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey James La Barrie[edit]

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

Although some reliable sources are provided, I believe this subject is only famous for WP:ONEEVENT. The sources all focus on his death and it is doubtful whether he would have been notable before. In fact, a recent AfD resolved to delete the article of the somewhat prominent Brian Hull who has more than 2 Million subscribers. This subject had 300,000. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, this article should be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey La barrie was an amazing human being and his collab channel with his best friend Crawford Collins ^[1]had 178000 subscribers as well as his own ^[2]392000 and is currently growing. His mother Lissa and his friends have worked hard, spending months making this Wikipedia page for him^[3] and taking it down is wrong and cruel. The comparison mentioned, Brian Hull, isn't verified either on any platform, whereas La Barrie is on youtube, Instagram, and tiktok. Corey was friends with many famous people publicly, and any KianandJc, Alex Wassabi, Tana Mongeau or Why Don't We fan would tell you they knew who Corey was. Brian Hull, however, is a voice impressionist and most of his fanbase are people who just enjoy his talent.

^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJllB47kdk2brq4zj6_593g
^ https://www.youtube.com/user/coreylabarrie
^ https://www.instagram.com/p/CHgX3-BpVtp/

- While I appreciate your effort to add an article to Wikipedia, we do have guidelines which determine whether a subject should be included. I believe Corey James La Barrie may not meet these guidelines. The fact that he had fans doesn't really matter as much here. Neither does the fact that he collaborated with well-known people since notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED. My issue with the article is that all of the better sources you provided are motivated by his death. As I said in my above comment, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and people whose notability is confined to one single event aren't always suitable for inclusion. About the Brian Hull comparison: I brought it up not to say that Hull is subject to the same guideline. The reason I mentioned him is to show that Corey James La Barrie would not have been notable by our standards without the coverage of his death. This, I think, is a good sign of someone notable for just one event. Note that, when I say notable, I mean it in a sense restricted to Wikipedia and not to slight Corey's memory. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1E, in this case an event that is really not out of the ordinary. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with the 1E, also Memorial. VViking_TalkEdits 14:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards, WP:MILL, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 Rue du Lac Flats Fire[edit]

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

Tragic fire (7 dead) but Wikipedia is not news and there's been little sustained coverage since the incident. (It did get a 10-line mention in a book 5 years later but I don't think this is enough to meet WP:GNG) Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:SUSTAINED failure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one news cycle and a mention in one book years later is not "ongoing coverage". Bearian (talk) 17:32, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 1478[edit]

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

Not enough lasting effect to get beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hull losses are notable, this was a particularly bad one, fortunately everyone survived, but it definitely got lasting coverage. [1] SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lasting coverage on a large airliner hull loss of a Boeing 727. Easily meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:PERSISTENCE. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. An entry at FedEx Express mentioning the crash is enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete+redirect. Amendment. The crash is already included in FedEx Express. The description there can be expanded.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't fail persistence. The incident was covered by Florida papers for over a year after it happened, including on the front page of the Tampa newspaper [2] over a year after it occurred and in Tallahassee [3] almost two years after the crash. This was a significant crash. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second time was when the NTSB released their report. I'm not really convinced of persistence after reading the article as the content came from the report. – The Grid (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like expected news cycle - the accident, beginning of inquiry, publication of inquiry findings. I would expect the same for any aircraft crash. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the AfD is breaking this way is exceptionally surprising to me. We have a hull loss of a major jetliner which was covered by the local paper for two years and was covered on the front pages of other newspapers for over a year and has been the subject of at least one additional non-newspaper article per this (if that isn't scholarly itself), The Puzzle of the Crash of Fedex Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation. This is far from a routine accident, which is "aircraft slides off runway" and then you never hear about it again. Unlike the various "airplane slides off runway" articles we frequently discuss, WP:NOT crystal clearly doesn't apply here, to me at least. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue: does the article stand on its own? It's mandatory that the NTSB reviews and reports incidents like this. Did anything change within standard flight procedures as a result from this accident? You link a study which also uses the NTSB report as its citation on page 36 as footnote 106. The Puzzle of the Crash of Fedex Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation is footnote 107 in this report. Can that be verified? How is that referenced report used in relation here? Educate us on what makes this unique. This would be similar to a BRD discussion on its talk page. – The Grid (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did "uniqueness" become a requirement for keeping an article on an airplane crash? This passes WP:PERSISTENCE (which is for small events which only get one cycle of news coverage) and WP:GNG with flying colours. The article on colourblindness is here, by the way. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because I see WP:PERSISTENCE as a poor argument. The accident happened. The NTSB report was done. The newspapers reported about the crash and the release of its report. I find it interesting that a proposal for guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH came to the same questions about aircraft articles. It's obviously just an essay but you can't tell me previous AfD for similar accidents didn't discuss similar questions that I'm asking. – The Grid (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the 2014 discussion on the WP:AIRCRASH talk page. In that conversation, Ahunt (who has !voted keep and was a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER advocate) noted a sliding scale between article notability between a newspaper writing about a Cessna sliding off a runway (which would be clearly deleted) and TWA Flight 800 (which would be clearly kept.) The key concept of notability actually goes a step above WP:GNG (which is just the test) - it's "worthy of notice." I don't think an aviation accident has to kill someone or change the way we fly in order to be notable as you seem to be proposing - ignoring the NTSB report, major newspapers wrote feature stories on the crash months/years after the crash happened, not to mention the hull loss. In my book, that's "worthy of note." The fact those articles may have been based on the NTSB report is irrelevant, as the release of the NTSB report itself was something worth reporting on. This may not be TWA 800 notable, but it's clearly over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for being a pain. You can collapse this discussion if it warrants going off the scope of AfD. – The Grid (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a hull loss of a large airliner. One of the contributing causes was highly unusual. GNG easily met here. Notability is not temporary. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hull losses of airliners on scheduled services have an established consensus as being notable. And as mentioned, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hull loss of large airliner. Vici Vidi (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, or question, really. Could someone please point out where consensus was established that aircraft accidents are notable enough for a standalone article? My understanding of WP:AIRCRASH is that that criteria warrants inclusion on a "List of" article. I've participated in several AfD discussions about air crashes, and this is the first I'm hearing of it. Granted, I don't know if any of those accidents included the loss of a hull, but none of those discussions brought up this consensus. If someone could please point it out, I'll gladly withdraw the nom.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is a guide as to when an accident should be included in a list, and there are plenty of places for accidents to be included in lists: by airport, by aircraft type, et cetera. We have heaps of standalone articles on aircraft accidents which pass WP:GNG and event/news notability guidelines. Using the "sliding scale" criteria I've outlined above, I'd say WP:AIRCRASH is more for when an accident may be notable enough for a list even if it's not notable enough for its own article, though many accidents which pass WP:AIRCRASH will be anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, that doesn't really answer my question as to where the consensus criteria exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I'm really not sure what you're asking about then, sorry. Aviation crash articles could be deleted for failing WP:GNG or either the event or newsworthiness criteria of WP:NOT and would be determined on a case-by-case basis, though accidents with deaths or with a hull loss generally get past wherever the line is. Most crashes which make it to AfD are routine and recent. I'm not sure there's specific consensus for or against that written anywhere, and there's no SNG I know of. Part of the reason I'm confused is that the way in which you've asked the question implies that aviation crashes should only be included in lists, but we've had articles on notable crashes for almost 20 years here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I see the above line of questioning (both) to be totally relevant and important. I am very appreciative to see questioning that is more productive that just a !vote because there was a "hull loss". It seems to me the "sliding scale" is more of a natural phenomenon from a routine "occurrence", to one with loss of lives, and including a hull loss or the added third criteria. The coverage will certainly increase with the severity of an occurrence. "Just" a hull loss might not garner a stand alone article. For an example: A hurricane hits an airport and destroys 5 planes. This would not be note-worthy for standalone status of the aircraft. Annex 13 gives the definition of "...from the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked", or as mentioned above "on scheduled services", and this is echoed at WP:AIRCRASH. It might be interesting to note that the above mentioned 2015 "non-newspaper article" was preceded by a 2005 article concerning CVD and neither resulted in any aviation rule changes that I am aware of. Onel5969 the reason you don't hear of WP:AIRCRASH at AFD is because: #1, it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles and #2, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Otr500 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two non-English Wikipedias already have it and the report has a lot of info. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbe, Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Non-notable village with no significant sources Majash2020 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it exists. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references added - now satisifies WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, article now reflects this (thanks to Dan arndt:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGEO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep demonstrated to pass GEOLAND with new references. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:43, 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. MER-C 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce, Nevada[edit]

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

Found in CAT:NN cleanup. Some of the topos call it "Spruce Siding", other show a railroad feature named Spruce with no buildings there. The few newspapers.com hits I can find are for an obscure railroad siding. I'm seeing no way this possibly passes WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is indeed a siding with a turning wye, presumably at one end or the other of a helper district. Just no notability here. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to Nevada Post Offices (Gamett & Paher), Spruce had a post office. However, I believe that the Spruce post office was originally named Sprucemont, which is located elsewhere, near Mizpah (see below). Not mentioned in Nevada Origin of Names. Not to be confused with Spruce Mountain Mining District, which is found on p. 222 of "Nevada Place Names," Carson, 1974, but not available in the GBooks version. Newspapers.com has 4 trivial mentions of "Spruce siding", here's one. This newspaper article states that Spruce siding was six miles from Mizpah. However Google Maps shows the distance as being at least 34.8 miles between Spruce and Mizpah. Spruce does appear on a railroad map, but that does not mean it is notable. So, it seems that Spruce was a station, so WP:STATION applies. I'm fairly certain that there was no post office at this location and have found no other legal recognition, so Spruce does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. This station has only trivial coverage, so it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 01:54, 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 21:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keel Forest[edit]

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

Has been in CAT:NN since 2015. From what I can tell, this is somebody's private forest park in Kentucky. I'm unable to find any significant coverage in independent sources for this. Probable COI involved, as this was created by User:Traviskeel, and mostly maintained by a user who has only edited this article and has attempted to add the phone number. Not seeing any notability here. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Hog Farm on this - I can find nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is zero third-party news sources that help establish why this private park is notable. All there is is a Google Maps listing done twice, in both References and External Links.TH1980 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some social media or blog posts by a Travis Allen Keel that refer to him as a curator at Keel Forest, but no independent, reliable sources at all. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent WP:RS, also doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Elms^super 05:52, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Daniel Bolden[edit]

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

Article makes no credible claim of significance, nor are there any sources in the article that meet the mandatory requirements for a biography. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any RS that give significant coverage to him (t · c) buidhe 12:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actor has made significant appearances in movies in televison shows, I won't mind reasearching for reliable sources on the actor. Deleting this actor's page will leave lot of redlinks and empty links all over pages where this actor is featured. This stub barely gets attention from editors and is a example of WP:PNA. I suggest finding more sources the article has WP:HASPOT to be improved. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found no significant coverage about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Less Unless Comment, Did you actually do your research? I found a reliable source from the New york times in less than a minute and I added to the page. This actor also does't fail guideline one of WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Bolden has have roles in over 20 movies and Televison shows combined and is still active, He without a doubt passes GNG. This article does need more citations though. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 Of course I did. I have looked through 7 Google pages and all I see is user generated sources with no actual coverage - just mentions of him playing several roles or wiki mirrors. Can you please provide the NYT link you found? As for the WP:NACTOR] - "multiple notable films" - again - multiple and notable. To me personally his filmography is far from that. If you happen to find significant coverage on him, please do add it to the article. Best,Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Less Unless, Here's the source fro the new york times talking about his role in the 2008 film Fly me to the Moon where the 3d genre was being reviltalized in the early to late 2000's source. I'm sure I can find more as User:Dflaw4 found an reliable source as well on a upcoming role. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't discuss any of that. It's a puff piece that makes exactly two mentions of the artist as a cast member. There isn't anything in that source that comes close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Thera re no sources for the fimlography or awards section, IMBd is not considered a reliable source so it's use as an external link is inconsequential here, and literally everything save but for the mention of fly me to the moon has no source. Literally every linked media project in his filmography section also fails to list the actor as a main character in the template save but for Are We Done Yet, and that's not cited in this article as it were so the potentially strongest claim for keep is noticeably absent. To me, the essay Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual comes into play here, as the subject has been covered but frankly not that well - at least not if our existing article is to be believed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TomStar81, So you still think that's a excuse for your harsh and narrow take of failing WP:NACTOR? This actor has over 20 credits in the field of Film and television being one of the main characters in Are We There Yet and he is still active to date. Debunking one source is not enough to delete an entire well enough notable actor's page. And the article still mention the subject enough to pass under WP:GNG.This actor has a way more debatable argument than Aleisha Allen. And even if this source doesn't cut it I featured a magazine source that centers around Bolden, Allen and other cast memebers' roles in Are We There Yet from Jet magazine, check the subject's article if you're intrested. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two drive by mentions - one in a photo caption - do not a demonstrate notability to me. While its true they are mentioned, the question I have that you still haven't answered is "why should we care?" Quite frankly, from where I sit, according to the article and the sources present at this time, we shouldn't care. Ultimately then, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should we care?" Are you serious? We're in a deletion discussion that you created where your rationale is the CSD A7 claim about no credible claim of significance when I provided you not one but two reliable sources confirming the roles themselves that fall under WP:HASREFS, and I can give you more. What do you think you're going to find,A in-depth interview with the actor that went on Hiatus for a entire decade? And the fact you're still trying to defend your already debunked point is wild. That's already a good start to get two reliable sources for a stub page thatonly recieve 9 edits in the 6 months before to you nominated the page for deletion albeit 5 of those edits being from myself. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a project, And the point is to care to make stub articles like these better and improve them before nominating them for deletion as last resort. You're supposed to do that. Agree to disagree. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see any problem in terms of WP:NACTOR, given the subject's roles in films like Are We There Yet? and Are We Done Yet?. The main issue seems to be WP:SIGCOV. But, he won a Young Artists Award, so if that is enough for WP:ANYBIO, then it trumps WP:GNG. If the article remains, I'd suggest adding this source regarding his most recent role: https://deadline.com/2020/09/millennials-umc-cast-1234581571/. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR and Dflaw4. He co-starred in two major comedic films. Like the Oscars, we have to be aware of bias against comedies. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William and Versey Smith[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. The sole source for biographical details is Discogs (marked "generally unreliable" in WP:RSPSOURCES). The list of songs can be merged into the existing linked articles on When the War Was On and The Titanic (song). Joofjoof (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joofjoof (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Joofjoof (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, writers of songs do not necessarily get the notability that performers do, and it has not been demonstrated here that that was the case. Geschichte (talk) 16:31, 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 merge to Thomas Carlyle. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Spectacles[edit]

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

One sentence substub about a non-notable concept. BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Not eligible for a PROD, due to the prod (from 10 years ago) being about lack of sources, and it being declined due to the existence of not inline source. That source - the best source - is a one-sentence from an old encyclopedia. I usually think that as a rule of thumb, something discussed in an encyclopedia is good for Wikipedia, but not when the entire discussion is a single sentence. At best, I think this could be redirected to whatever work of Thomas Carlyle's this concept originated, if this can be sourced there (I don't think any article links here outside the transclusions from {{Thomas Carlyle}}). Right now his biography doesn't even mention this, and as I noted above, it does not appear this term has caught on in academic or literary discourse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 5 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} 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Thomas Carlyle? I found the concept insightful (excuse poor pun, and on a purely personal note FWIW), and would like to keep this safe somewhere, because despite its brevity I reckon this stub actually contains more encyclopaedic value than some much longer articles I've seen... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per DoubleGrazing. The information from the source article can be added to Thomas Carlyle definitions section.Less Unless (talk) 18:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roozbeh Hosseini[edit]

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

The article is about a non notable individual. Does Not pass any notability reqs. Delete. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: as nom Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to add that all of the major editors of the page were socks of each other and have all been banned. Please refer to this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azar Rafiee. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Like many Iranian artists and writers, there is a lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, with no other delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiyum Naanum (TV series)[edit]

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

I can find no coverage of the 2020 TV show online in RS, not even the usual paid promo stuff. (Not to be confused with the 2008 film with the same name.) It's broadcast on an internationally syndicated channel, but doesn't meet WP:TVSERIES. Captain Calm (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a reliable reference from Republic World: [4] and recent debut week ratings. I will try finding few more RS and contents for the series.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobie anonymous (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ferry Man Manjusaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The citations are basically listings or passing mentions. WP:BEFORE did not yield anything more substantial. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 22:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film was listed in the top 10 movies on iQIYI and grossed 42 million RMB, with a revenue size and popularity comparable with films shown at the same time in traditional cinemas. I gave 'delete' at you nominated another film article Tomb of the Sea Side Story: Hua Mei (create by me). But this one is different. VocalIndia (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This film clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. iQIYI was the distributor of the film so not exactly an IS. Notability is not the same as popularity...NFILM does not include any revenue criteria, see WP:NFO — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as has significant coverage in multiple news sources from the reliable Chinese media, see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and many more. Moreover this film screened at the Shanghai Film Festival, a major film festival in Chian see source . Aslo won an award in the International New Media Film and Television Festival see source and won an award in the Shanghai Film Festival source. So passes WP:NFILM. How much do you need? What is the community value of these unresearched AfDs? 185.205.141.123 (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muthamil[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced biography. Couldn't find any sources (முத்தமிழ்). TamilMirchi (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2016-11 ✗ PROD, 2016-11 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DXTM[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BCAST as the station generates its own programming as confirmed by the ugnayan.com source. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The station is licensed per 2011 and 2019 NTC listings. The other sources indicate some of the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 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. No indication from the sole keep vote how this individual meets any guideline. Editors are reminded that disagreements with established guidelines are best discussed at that guidelines talk page Fenix down (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Koutrouvelis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as the coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE and there isn't enough to build a biography from. There is no evidence that she has achieved enough coverage/importance as a footballer or as a physio to warrant an article.

[18] - routine announcement saying that she's signed to the squad
[19] - mentioned once
[20] - describes her as a veteran for Box Hill but no in-depth coverage
[21] - passing mention
[22] - this is her profile for the company that she works for as a physio Spiderone 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:23, 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. No indication from the sole keep vote how this individual meets any guideline. Editors are reminded that disagreements with established guidelines are best discussed at that guidelines talk page Fenix down (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Jones[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability; looks to fail WP:GNG. I found plenty of passing mentions but nothing hugely substantial.

[23] - this shows she made 13 appearances
[24] - mentioned once
[25] - mentioned that she scored twice in a game that's below W-League level
[26] - passing mention
[27] - mentioned once
[28] - mentioned once

There were other sources but, again, she seems to always just be mentioned in passing. Spiderone 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet football inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails to satisfy any known notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:23, 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. No indication from the sole keep vote how this individual meets any guideline. Editors are reminded that disagreements with established guidelines are best discussed at that guidelines talk page Fenix down (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hartley[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO; not enough coverage found for 'Lisa Hartley' or 'Lisa Farrington'. She was playing as recently as 2016 but with no recorded appearances, see here. While playing for Central Coast Mariners in 2008, she gained a small amount of notability for being the first W-League player to be sent off [29] [30]. In my view, this isn't sufficient for GNG and it's not enough to build a biography from. Spiderone 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet any guidelines for inclusion or the BLP policy. Adding to two sources (mentioned above that do not advance notability) would not solve BLP issues.
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:22, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as G12, unambiguous copyright infringement, by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Yousefi[edit]

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

Non-notable poet and songwriter. Appears to be either an autobiography or conflict of interest.

Declined twice in draft space, then created again in article space.

Tagged as possible copyvio. This may be a case of the author tying himself in a knot by first putting the content on a copyrighted site and then in Wikipedia. Submitting this AFD nomination anyway in case at least a stub remains after any copyvio is removed.

None of the references are independent reliable sources. One is YouTube; three are SoundCloud; one is subject's own.

Does not satisfy author notability or musical notability, and no indication of any other general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. The sources provided are all non-independent and a google search did not reveal any evidence of notability. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Vasile (engineer)[edit]

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

A pretty random professor, overall. As implied by this AfD, membership in the so-called Technical Sciences Academy of Romania does not confer notability. His employer, Valahia University of Târgoviște, is third-rate, which hardly inspires confidence he might pass any WP:PROF criteria. His hobbies, while eclectic, do not rise above dilettantism. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for the deletion is absurd. It is not to a petty wikipedian who has no qualification in the field to assess the competence of an organization, mentioning it as "so called". It is an officially recognized as such by the Romanian government. Why would it be so called, just because Biruitorul does not like it. Why would we state that the University where he is teaching is third rate or first rate. Nicolae Vasile has published several technical books. There is no reason to simply state that they worthless. The entire argument suggesting the deletion is simply a non-substantiated personal opinion. Those are not the criteria of Wikipedia. There could be hundreds of articles of Wikipedia which would be delete if we applied the citeria Biruitorul tries to apply to this article. afil

Delete. Google Scholar citation counts are well below both what I would expect for a notable academic engineer per WP:PROF#C1, but also below what I would expect for the selection criteria of a properly selective national academy, casting doubt on any case for #C3. Publication of books or papers alone is not enough for notability; those publications must be noted, and in this case we have no evidence that they have been. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Could we at least be consistent in how we deal with such proposals. I wrote the article when I tried to find information about Nicolae Vasile and found out that, according to Wikipedia he was a Romanian soccer player active in the Spain's third league. It is obviously another person. What I don't understand is why an obscure soccer player of Spain's third league is worth an article and a university professor and author of several books is not. I could easily find other examples to quote this. Maybe athletes are more publicized than scientists in mass media. That does not make them more notable. What makes you doubt about the selectivity of the national academy. It is an organization founded by several members of the Romanian Academy and its scope has been defined by a law voted in the Romanian Parliament and promulgated by the President of Romania. afil

Delete As David Eppstein pointed out, the citation profile is not nearly impressive enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, which in turn makes dubious the idea that the Technical Sciences Academy of Romania is selective enough when handing out memberships that those memberships qualify for WP:PROF#C3. In the absence of solid, affirmative evidence that the TSAoR is a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society, the safer course is to assume that it isn't. I make no judgment about whether or not his employer is "third-rate", as that seems beside the point either way. Wiki-notable people can wash up in all sorts of places, and the only case where that would matter for WP:PROF is if we were trying to decide whether a "Distinguished Professor" title or a top-level administrative position were meaningful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Foundation for Urology[edit]

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

Non-notable non-profit organization. No independent sources. The first reference is the organization's own, and the second and third are passing mentions. The article consists only of what the organization says about itself, and not what others say about it.

Naïve Google search shows that the organization exists, and is in Heidelberg. We knew that.

Submitted to AFC and declined, but then moved into article space without further review. (This is permitted, but raises questions.) Submitting account appears to have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not currently demonstrate that it can pass notability guidelines and a search (per nom) does not reveal much if any, additional coverage. FWIW the creator exhibited similar behaviour in respect of another article (Markus Hohenfellner 'founder' of this organisation) which was also moved to mainspace without issues being addressed (subsequently improved; but later returned to draft again). As nom observes, there may be COI issues here but questions raised re this, PAID and username at their TP have seemingly not been responded to. Eagleash (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not begin to meet WP:NCORP. Two of the three references did not mention this organisation at all, so I've removed them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:50, 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) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Prada Maçaneiro[edit]

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for two 2013 Campeonato Brasileiro Série B matches following an injury to the starting goalkeeper. There is plenty of routine Portuguese-language coverage consisting of transfer announcements and match reports, but no in-depth coverage (the article has a good sampling of the routine coverage available). Although the two Série B matches create a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, might scrape by on NFOOTBALL but fails GNG comprehensively, which is far more important. Giant Snowman 20:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 16:54, 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. MER-C 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wadhwani Foundation[edit]

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

Advertising The Banner talk 18:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TNT, and WP:SIGCOV. But just to be sure, I looked online. I found zero newspaper articles, a whole lots of PR and RfCs, and a few passing mentions in books about micro-credit, but that's it. If you try to rescue this mess, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian Spiderone 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. -Hatchens (talk) 10:16, 21 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 21:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Joyce Pub Award[edit]

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

Obvious WP:PROD material, but it had a prod contested back in 2011 which technically makes it ineligible. Promotional nonsense for a meaningless "award", needless to say with no references whatsoever. A WP:BEFORE search just brings up assorted places selling these plaques, and were it not for WP:AGF the cynic in me would say the only reason this non-article exists at all is to give credibility to the firms selling these things. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable advertising guff. Fails WP:NPRODUCT, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search returns no independent coverage of the subject in its own right. A search on one of the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times), for example, returns just two results. Both are just trivial passing mentions. And one of the two results only mentions it to call it out as a form of "crass" "advertisement". A search on the website of the main broadcaster in Ireland (RTÉ), also returns just one trivial passing mention. And this, again, only mentions the subject to decry it as rubbish: "You can buy a plaque with Joyce's head and some guff about an authentic Dublin pub award on the internet for €395.00". The PROD was seeming denied back in 2011 on the basis of a technicality. That the PROD tag used was for companies. And that the subject (essentially a product) couldn't be PROD'ed as a company. That may have been the right approach at the time. But there is no way that should have a bearing on a fullsome AfD review. PROMO, VER, COI, SPA and other concerns also abound. Mine is a very firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. ww2censor (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable award. Spleodrach (talk) 09:47, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Archibald[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, referenced exclusively to IMDb with no evidence shown of any reliable source coverage about him in media independent of himself. As usual for bad articles about television personalities, this is written like somebody just tried to rewrite his staff profile on the self-published website of one of his own employers -- but as usual for television personalities, the notability test is not the ability to primary source the fact that he exists via content self-created by his own employer, but the ability to verify that he has received third party journalistic attention from media other than his own employers. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced significantly better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks RS, does not meet any Wikipedia guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for a Canadian meteorologist, he has a lot of followers on Twitter. I need more time to do research. 17:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Curtis (soccer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability requirements for footballers; her professional career was very brief and she only made two appearances, including one as a substitute. There do not appear to be any WP:RS providing WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Os Barões da Pisadinha[edit]

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

It is perhaps too soon for this group. The article's only claim of notability is that one of the group's songs was linked by an athlete on Instagram. Note that most of the items in their discography list, despite being in italics, are just songs and not albums. Can find no significant and reliable media coverage necessary for notability, and they can only be found in the typical retail, lyrics, and database sites. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Just because Neymar danced to one of their songs on freaking instagram, does not make up notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Mann[edit]

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

Unsourced article for person who seems to fail WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. Someone with a WP:LIBRARY pass would be helpful. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 19:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. 19:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 19:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mann wrote some books, most library holdings of single digit except How To Find Your Real Self (43 libraries) (no usable reviews found), a gsearch brings up mostly mentions/blogs that are not useable ie. "How To Find Your Real Self By Mildred Mann (Unabridged Audio book With Commentary)" podcast, Changing Your Future: Just wish it, be convinced and it happens by Roland Michel Tremblay ("This list of four steps, couched in quasi-scientific terms, is quite similar to, and was influenced by, the panentheistic "Seven Steps in Demonstration" first outlined in the book Become What You Believe by Mildred Mann (1904 - 1971): ..." (p.20)), more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google, Google Scholar, Google Books and newspapers.com turn up no reviews of their work or articles about the author in sources that would be considered WP:RS. The author meets none of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR. Cxbrx (talk) 15:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Switch Networks[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject to demonstrate WP:NCORP. The article is sourced entirely from press releases, the company's own website or industry press. There are a few mainstream press mentions, as you would expect with any company, but there's nothing featuring the company and certainly nothing which we could use to support notability. Ch1p the chop (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, combined with the fact it's yet another corporate page that lays out the company's products presumably in the hope an interested buyer sees it. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't come close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per sources provided, little OK. Mr-5 / (M ✉ / C🖋 ) 14:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article combining an unreferenced product feature list with text and references summarising the company's investors, customers, and sponsorship of other projects, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate that it attained notability. (A summary merge to the company's purchaser Arista Networks might be an option.) AllyD (talk) 14:26, 22 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)} 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. Biju[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. The sources only cover the person in the context of his death and is a case of WP:BLP1E Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the offices he held would make him anywhere near notable according to NPOL and I could not find significant coverage from before his death besides this article, which just notes that he was appointed to some position. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable local level politician and WP:MILL and WP:TNT. He clearly fails our standards for politicians because he's never been elected. Members of a party are run of the mill; they come and go. VocalIndia (talk) 14:47, 14 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 21:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptability quotient[edit]

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

Mix of promotional content, original research, and blatant copyright violations (e.g. [31] [32]). Very poor sourcing -- lots of links to youtube, medium articles, and corporate pages selling products/services, or just totally unrelated material (e.g. the studies used do not mention AQ at all). Also the original creator was banned for only being here to write promotional content. Citing (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The poor sourcing noted by the nominator also includes Forbes "contributor" nonsense. 75% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and XOR'easter. Footlessmouse (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, this looks like a POV fork of Psychological resilience. I would not oppose a merger. 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Anderson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure notable only as a member of a school board. As always, this is not an "inherently" notable level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself, and the existence of a small smattering of local coverage, which is simply expected to always exist for all school board members everywhere, does not get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. To qualify for an article on these grounds, he would need to show nationalized coverage demonstrating that he was much more notable than most other school board members -- and while there is one hit of coverage that expands beyond the local here, that still isn't enough. There's also a clear conflict of interest here, as the article has been extensively edited by a user named "TayAndersonCO". Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's national coverage of his activism relating to the George Floyd protest. The WaPo, NYT, CNN, and PBS have either written about his activism or asked him to speak about the protests. The CNN article is within the last month. The COI seems minimal with almost no text added but a photo, DOB, and some grammar changes. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get over the notability bar on sources in which he's doing the speaking about other things — for a source to support his notability, he has to be the subject being spoken about by other people. So he doesn't get over the bar on sources where he's an interview guest, or sources in which he gives a soundbite about Amy Coney Barrett: he gets over the notability bar by being the thing that other people are talking about, not sources in which he's doing the talking. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to lots of local coverage (e.g. [33]), having a full WaPo article meets the threshold for reliable sourcing.Citing (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every school board member on the planet can always cite local coverage without exception, so local coverage is not enough to get a school board member over the bar all by itself. It requires nationalized coverage to make a school board member notable enough, and it requires a lot more than just one piece of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree with you on this. Getting a full profile in WaPo, written about in the NYT as an important member in a movement, and being interviewed alongside Roxane Gay and Anna Deavere Smith pushes someone over the threshold for me. At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think this subject can be written about as extensively as, say, a major league athlete who plays one game.Citing (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with me or not, because Wikipedia consensus is on my side: a person has to be the subject that other people are speaking about in the third person, not the person doing the speaking about subjects, for a source to count as support for his or her notability, and it does take a lot more than just one such source to get a person over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tay is obviously notable and it's dumb that we are even having this discussion. If every soccer player that's ever lived can get a Wikipedia page, then school board members can too. Calling the coverage he has gotten a "small smattering" is dishonest at best. He certainly has gotten more coverage than your average school board member. And since when does someone need national coverage to be notable? The Denver metro area is larger than entire countries. And if you feel like there has conflict of interest edits, then remove them. I'll never understand why so many Wikipedians are trigger happy with deleting articles. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable — which means they're not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist. Mayors, city councillors, county-level officials, school board members, and on and so forth, do have to show that they're considerably more notable than the norm for those levels of office, by virtue of being more than just locally notable within one city. It is true that we don't have a hard ban on "local" topics getting into Wikipedia — but local topics do have to clear a significantly higher burden of "why is this of interest to us?" than topics of much more obviously national significance do. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hyper-local politician, simply being an elected member of a school board(?!?) doesn't qualify someone for an article. That being said the Washington Post article is a decent one and there's a very good chance he'll be notable enough for an article in the near future. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing against having "local" people on Wikipedia. He is an elected politician who has had a massive amount of coverage. Again, if Li Xiayan is notable, then Tay is too lol. Wikipedia does not require people to have a national presence. Tay has been reported on extensively, which fulfills any notability requirements. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, watch out for WP:OSE: just because article A is notable doesn't mean article B is, because article A may not actually be notable in the first place. You are correct local notability is not necessarily a barrier, but being on a school board doesn't meet our notability guidelines at WP:NPOL, and I don't think he's at a point where he's otherwise past the notability threshold, though as I note he's closer than a lot of other local politicians. SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Meanderingbartender show extensive national coverage, which likely passes WP:GNG by itself (recognizing the questions by Bearcat). Beyond that WP:POLOUTCOMES states that a local politician "may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." To me, it is clear that the subject has received national coverage beyond what a normal school board member usually receives. --Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm generally not in favor of school board directors getting articles, however, he oversees a major municipal school district and has received national coverage, so I think it's enough to pass the keep bar. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:30, 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 per WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the United States by home state[edit]

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

An instance of listcruft. The number of Presidents born in specific states is rather minor compared to how America is their birth country (or how their birthplaces eventually became part of it). I fail to see how such a compilation is worth maintaining. Wikipedia shouldn't become a site dedicated to Presidential statistics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington

J. Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Monroe

Jackson

J.Q. Adams

W.H. Harrison

Van Buren

Taylor

Tyler

Buchanan

Polk

Fillmore

Pierce

A. Johnson

Lincoln

Grant

Hayes

Arthur

Garfield

B. Harrison

Cleveland

McKinley

Wilson

Taft

T. Roosevelt

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

F.D. Roosevelt

Truman

Eisenhower

Kennedy

L.B. Johnson

Reagan

Nixon

Ford

G.H.W. Bush

Carter

G.W. Bush

Clinton

Obama

Trump

Biden

class=notpageimage|

Birthplaces of U.S. Presidents

Keep An instance of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The topic is quite well done – I especially like the map (right) It passes WP:LISTN as entire books are written about this. See Where the Presidents Were Born, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I see your point about statistics related to presidential birth places. The problem I have is that a similar article already exists. I think it would be appropriate to somehow consolidate some of the information (i.e. states of primary affiliation, not necessarily their birth state) into that particular article.2601:5C4:4301:5420:5812:B0D2:6148:6BB1 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew of the page you linked, IP, and merging this page into the residences one would certainly help get rid of redundancies. All the more reason for this home state list to not exist. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:LISTN. A list that provides the state of origin for each president is vastly different than List of residences of presidents of the United States, which lists the secondary residences and vacation homes of presidents. KidAd talk 18:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clearly notable topic of interest. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is significant ongoing coverage of the presidents's homes and home states. Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents has many well-viewed and -sourced lists of presidential statistics and this is one of the more important ones. This list is already a merger of Lists of Presidents of the United States by place of birth, List of Presidents of the United States by place of primary affiliation, and List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth, but adding the residences may be doable. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how this is perceived as trivia. On the other hand the presidential home states are very widely, extensively and prolifically covered. Geschichte (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FWIW I'd come looking for just this information. 217.39.47.189 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too was looking for precisely this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.63.230 (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is just as useful as all the other trivia-based US president list pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds contradictory; trivia-based lists are the opposite of useful when they don't offer anything of encyclopedic value. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that sounds more like a Delete !vote. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:LISTN says that a list is acceptable if it has been discussed as a group or set. The home states of presidents have been discussed often, especially during election years when discussing strategies for winning key states. As Andrew D says, Where the Presidents Were Born appears to be an especially strong source. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previously stated. By the proposer's reasoning, an entire infobox of lists about the presidents and vice presidents of the United States would have to be deleted; that alone suggests that reasoning is WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The information in this list is encyclopedic and a clear topic of discussion; it enables a comparison of personal facts about presidents (age, date & place of birth, state of residence) that are routinely discussed in the broader context of the presidency (as opposed to individual presidents). Also, this list article is already cumbersome due to the multiple topics it covers; merging it into another presidential list would be extremely unwieldy and problematic. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That bit on Vice Presidents is a stretch when my rationale actually has nothing to do with those people. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The United States has, as everybody knows, a Federal structure, and US states have very much of local patriotism and pride. It is very real possibility that an American citizen full of civic pride in his or her home state would like to know which Presidents were born there. Lacking this list, such a person would be reduced to the time-consuming method of looking up the individual page of each and every President and finding their place of birth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the function of an encyclopedia is to provide information which people might be interested in, so a page providing that should be preserved.Anne McDermott (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how likely people are to seek out which presidents were born in the same state as them, but WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't a convincing argument either way. I personally feel details on which state each came from is better for their individual articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notion that having a president as a native son is significant is a long-held truth and point of pride for individual states. There are two states (Virginia and Ohio) that semi-officially refer to themselves as "The Mother of Presidents" (and one, Indiana, "The Mother of Vice Presidents"). Clearly this is an encyclopedic topic per LISTN. 174.254.192.175 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but rename to List of presidents of the United States by state of birth or something similar per WP:PRECISE criterion. // Timothy :: talk 05:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:42, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archa Mehta[edit]

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

Non notable fashion designer with no indication of satisfying WP:GNG. Sources are all interviews, comments by the subject, and mentions with no wide coverage. A WP:BEFORE search does not show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:22, 12 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, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

Delete - falling short on WP:GNG Spiderone 20:00, 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 redirect to Wolverine (character). Compromise between delete and merge: editors can merge content from the history if desired. Sandstein 09:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Wolverine[edit]

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

As with most of the others deleted, this is a collection of trivial plot-only details lacking real world information provided by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The main article can easily handle a basic summary of major variations that are actually covered in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references are to individual comic books, need I say more. This is pure Wikia material, plain and simple. Was clearly made before current standards for cruft were a thing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolverine (character) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content to Wolverine per BOZ above. No evidence this topic warrants a stand-alone article (and that it passes GNG/NFICTION). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to form consensus. Article does not have the sources to separate a stand-alone topic according to WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTPLOT, WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 13:59, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Martinez[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR: all minor roles only so far, with no significant coverage in reliable sources online. Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL: I can find no significant coverage online of the "Ms United Nations" pageant that the article claims she's won. The "2021 Asian Film Festival" might be notable, but I can find no significant coverage of that either, nor of her future role in it. There's a reality television contestant with this name, who appears to be a separate and unrelated person. Captain Calm (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete not notable as either an actress nor as a model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an official judge of the 2021 Asian films festival and act on notable titles. (official site of Asian Film Festival and her profile), sources totally can verify that also this photo is the proof. XZ2X (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)— XZ2X (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sock strike Spiderone 22:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your allegations are not true. The link was posted to the cover of the magazine, that she was on for her beauty pageant title wins and apparently you didn't look well, because here she is all over GETTY IMAGES: https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/miss-north-america-united-nations-amber-martinez-arrives-news-photo/511272168,

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-martinez-attends-ezway-magazine-pre-release-event-on-news-photo/502085634?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-martinez-attends-ezway-magazine-pre-release-event-on-news-photo/502085632?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ms-north-america-united-nations-2016-amber-martinez-attends-news-photo/613797614?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ms-north-america-united-nations-2016-amber-martinez-and-pop-news-photo/613797620?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ms-north-america-united-nations-2016-amber-martinez-attends-news-photo/614451718?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ms-united-nations-globe-2016-attends-los-angeles-travel-news-photo/586878764?adppopup=true, https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/ms-united-nations-globe-2016-attends-los-angeles-travel-news-photo/586878820?adppopup=true,

And I guess, you did not look at the articles in the LA Tribune, E! News! or any other valid news source for the 2021 Asian Film Festival...So here is this for reference, she is right here, getting her judges appointment on their official website: https://asianfilmfestival.us/?page_id=33543

And Amber Martinez is a vaild SAG-AFTRA union actress and has acted in all of those roles, those credits are all valid. She is a member of the Screen Actors Guild and the official guild member for music composing, the Society of Composers and Lyricists (SCL). She is a valid actress and is known. The Page should stay. It is valid and she is relevant as an actress, a beauty pageant winner, and a judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by all the facts on the page are valid and verifiable. AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete A bunch of these sources are just the same pr article on different SEO/Fake News sites. I guess AmyMHollywoodNow did not look to check that the Los Angeles Tribune went out of business in the 1960's and the naming rights are currently owned by an SEO/PR Firm before accusing Captain Calm of not going through the sources. Getty Images is not a reliable source at all, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost every source is a rehashing of the exact same news article; this completely and utterly fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. etc. Spiderone 15:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even going to bother with an indepth source analysis, this is just ridiculous PR spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Comment I've added even more news articles from many different sites. that confirm she is valid and I will keep doing so and updating accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote twice, all you've done is successfully mucked up the article with a bunch of nonsensical PR spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Praxidicae I did not muck up the article at all. I am changing and updated the sources.[reply]

What part of "you may not vote twice" is unclear? You're welcome to comment but you've already voted keep once. Stop doing it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmyMHollywoodNow: you can comment as much as you want, but you can only vote once. Also in what world is PR Photos Celebrity News a reliable source? Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep working on fixing my sources and the page. But my valid page, should not be removed. I will contact the Wikipedia Foundation if I have too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmyMHollywoodNow: To say what? That Praxidicae is following Wikipedia policies by removing spam links and likely outing yourself as an paid editor? I recommend reading Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a paid editor. I didn't even know that existed. I am just trying to do this page right with the sources. I will contact the Wikipedia Foundation. I stand by what I said. This is a valid public figure and working SAG-AFTRA Union Actor. I am updating my sources and will continue to be doing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what good that will do AmyMHollywoodNow, the WMF has absolutely no control over editorial decisions or content. What is your goal with contacting them, exactly? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) talk[reply]

I know, that WMF has the power to do many things, including removing editors who are bullying people. I know that if you delete pages, that you get points added to your account. I also know, that Captain Calm has been bullying me the entire time, I have been on Wikipedia (literally since day 1). He has also sent a harassing message to my private talk box today. I will not be cyber bullied...I am simply trying to fix and update my sources, to finish my page. Captain Calm, has been trying to delete everything I have done since the beginning of me being on Wikipedia. I definitely feel harassed and bullied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyMHollywoodNow (talk • contribs)

I know that if you delete pages, that you get points added to your account. Man, wish someone had told me that. Where do I redeem these points? Asking for a friend, of course. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real actress with real and notable credits. This page should not be deleted, this page is factual. She was just in the Los Angeles Tribune yesterday morning, everyone saw it because it was on the front page. And she was Ms. United Nations Globe, I read that article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taskforce51mc (talk • contribs) sock strike Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi totally not a sock editor, where does one pick up a newspaper that hasn't put out a print copy since 1960 and who's current "editorial staff" are not actually journalists but people who's photos are of people covered in previous "articles"? Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, Their edit patterns seem identical. SPI case and maybe a final TPaccess revoke may be appropriate. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a spam article about a non-notable actress. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:NACTOR and no notable works, I think the article is WP:MASK too. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 13:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:35, 21 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. Nominator is a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no other participation (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.R.K Universe[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources. The part about "promising artist" is from SoundBetter.com, and vaguely says "Considered a Promising artist on Billboard's "Next Big Sound", but I can find no confirmation of this in a reliable source. Captain Calm (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:17, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun Productions[edit]

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

Fringe group, references on page are all primary and/or self-published. Mansheimer (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORGIND. 6 references from Brainwashed.com count as one for notability. 4 references to Anarcocks and 2 from Discogs means that almost 65% of the references do not qualify as a source. I stopped looking at this point because I agree with Nom. Otr500 (talk) 08:38, 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 redirect to Help desk. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical assistance center[edit]

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

This is a very generic term that I don't see meriting a standalone article. It is certainly not restricted to what this article claims. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - far too vague and little-known to have its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Redirect per Andrew. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Help desk which is much the same topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect does indeed seem like a good idea. As it is, the article is rather obscure. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Help desk: Per Andrew Davidson. It can be briefly discussed in the target article if ever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Favonian (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Berro[edit]

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

I declined a request for G11 speedy deletion, because it didn't quite seem to fit the requirements for G11. However, the article doesn't seem to have any credible claim of notability about its subject. Fails WP:GNG. Expect some COI and/or SPA editors to show up at this discussion. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 07:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 07:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you look at ZOE "Magazine" and scroll to the bottom of their website, it disclaims that it is owned and operated by Albamedia, an Italian web development/PR/Digital Marketing firm. The other two sources that aren't his own website or Youtube read like paid articles. Fails GNG, possibly to A7 levels. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks very much like promotion for a non-notable artist. Quality and diversity of sources fails GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatMontrealIP (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Nachtbold (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A self-promoting teenager rather than a notable artist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created by what seems to be a sockpuppet used for promotional purposes. No evidence of notabily, fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 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 merge. I chose Stephenson Bastion as the merge target for now. Geschichte (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Bow Bluff[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a seemingly insignificant random cliff. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ten years ago one user decided to mass-produce thousands of articles that merely copied and pasted material from the USGS with no further sources, coverage, or assertion of notability. Explore articles in Category:Cliffs of Coats Land, which contains this, and the web of categories in Category:Landforms of Antarctica, most of which are generic landforms about which little more than the naming is known. Few pass WP:GEOLAND#4. Reywas92^Talk 07:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are mentions of this formation in several articles, but I wonder if it would be better incorporated into the article on Shackleton Range. It ought to be mentioned somewhere, even if it doesn't warrant its own article. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with Noswall - this should be merged or listified somewhere, but it's not notable enough for a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, lets look at WP:NGEO's "This page in a nutshell" - ".. and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable.", a quick gsearch brings up an entry in the australian Antarctic Data Centre Gazetteer (oh, what wikipedia is meant to be, a gazetteer:)) that it was described by Fuchs and Hillary during the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition, here the naming is confirmed in Alberts' Geographic Names of the Antarctic, this paper by Clarkson that appeared in the British Antarctic Survey Bulletin describes the Turnpike Bluff Group in which Ram Bow Bluff (RBB) appears to be quite a prominent part of the Stephenson Bastion (see cross-section CD of fig. 8. page 17), this paper (Metamorphic and Structural Evolution of the Southern Shackleton Range during the Ross Orogeny) by Buggisch etal. that appeared in Polarforschung includes geologic description of RBB throughout. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps. as for the nominators comment - "a seemingly insignificant random cliff.", need to remember that what can be seen of these formations is above the ice ie. "The summits of the Shackleton Range and Theron Mountains protrude above the EAIS as nunataks at up to 1.8 km above sea level, while the bed at the floor of the Recovery, Slessor, and Bailey troughs is as deep as 2.5 km below sea level; the ice thickness in these glaciers exceeds 3 km [Fretwell et al., 2013."]. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:24, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Room[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:Toughpigs with the following rationale " don't have decent sources to offer right now, but the Danger Room is well known and viewed as an iconic part of the X-Men mythos. If you've got a problem with the page, then I think it's more appropriate to use AfD and get more peoples' opinions". I am sorry, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES or THEREMAYBESOURCES is not good enough. Can anyone find something that discusses this room in-depth, and goes beyond a plot summary or a, sigh, screenshot? Seriously, a third of the references in this article are screenshots. That's quite extreme OR+FANCRUFT :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 12 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} 06:42, 12 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} 06:42, 12 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} 06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clearly notable topic that has become a major trope in pop culture. It gets a pages-long summary in 100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die (#44 - Danger Room), as well as numerous pages in the DK X-Men encyclopedia. I am sure there are numerous other significant mentions out there given the Danger Room's long history and usage in X-Men comics and films._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all plot summary, and the DC X-Men encyclopedia is a PRIMARY source to boot, so totally irrelevant (it's jut a comic book-style encyclopedia, very in-universe). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The encyclopedia isn't a primary source. It was Marvel licensed but published by DK, who collated the information. The other book isn't a primary source either. Primary means it has to come directly from Marvel, which it doesn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just look at the page visible in the IA. It's a comic book, not a serious publication. Primary sources about Marvel don't have to be published directly by Marvel. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a cross-section diagram of a building, which plenty of "serious publications" contain. It doesn't look like any sort of comic book I've ever heard of. It's clearly an encyclopedia. Unless you plan to disqualify any encyclopedia entries from reputable publications because they contain pictures._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        To illustrate ZXCVBNM's point further, just compare the DK Guide: London, page 7 or 152/153. I don't see any reason why this should not be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It surely isn't the primary source for Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral; rather perhaps a tertiary one. So I don't see why the DK X-Men Encyclopedia suddenly should be primary. Daranios (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Professional building diagrams don't usually include details like a Wolverine jumping around. And you fail to address the fact that the entry is purely descriptive and contains no shred of analysis or significance. No source has been presented that even calls this location important or significant outside in-universe sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Saying that "a Wolverine jumping around" immediately disqualifies a published book from being reliable smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's very clearly an independent reference work so I'm not really sure how to further prove my point past what I already said._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Please avoid straw man arguments. I didn't stay that ""a Wolverine jumping around" immediately disqualifies a published book from being reliable". I said that "Professional building diagrams don't usually include details like a Wolverine jumping around". What disqualifies this source is that it contains only a description, and has no analysis of the significance and that it is effectively an in-universe compendium - it assumes things are important because they are important in-universe, not in the real world. We should not repeat that pattern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination starts by telling us about a WP:PROD. This demonstrates blatant disruption because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." As these nominations are being routinely opposed, such opposition ought to be expected now. And now this further nomination violates WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:CIVIL. See also WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:IDHT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A room can be notable. Even a fictional place - if there are sources. Which so far, I do not see, except a picture book linked above. That is cute but about as helpful for establishing notability as for my cat. Which, arguably, is even cuter...sorry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cookie-cutter nomination asserts that there are no sources but provides no credible evidence. Per WP:NEXIST, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." It seems apparent that this hasn't been done because satisfactory sources can easily be found. For example, the book The Science of the X-Men which details "...the amazing robotics and holograms that make up the X-Men's amazing adaptive obstacle course known as the Danger Room." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the best you seem to find is a one-sentence mention in passing that is effectively a plot summary anyway. Still not a step up from a picture book discussed above. I am still not impressed, sorry - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided is to the description of a book of 274 pages. As that book's focus is explaining the science associated with the topic, that's more than just plot. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there actually are secondary sources. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there are:

Gender, Feminism, and Heroism in Joss Whedon and John Cassaday’s Astonishing X-Men Comics gives, besides plot summary, quite a bit of analysis. Also is extensive!; The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times has a tiny bit of analysis; MTV calls it "mythic"; does anyone have access to HOLY CRIMINOLOGY, BATMAN! COMICS AND CONSTRUCTIONS OF CRIME AND JUSTICE or Animal Bodies and Artificial Bodies where it is also featured?; Also very interesting, but I don't know if this has been reviewed in any way: Cognitive Rehabilitation Specialization Portfolio.

There's also a number of secondary sources just giving a description or definition of the danger room, like The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City.

Do we need more? These were not difficult to find using Gscholar. So can only join Andrew in asking to really do a proper WP:BEFORE search before nominating for AfD and especially PROD! (Thanks to Toughpigs for detecting this.) Daranios (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you don't understand the difference between analysis and plot summary. Please quote as much as a single sentence form your first source that discusses the Danger Room outside of a plot summary. Where is that "quite a bit of analysis"? Every single sentence that mentions DR is pure plot summary and nothing but. Ditto for your second source, please quote that "tiny bit of analysis" - I don't see it, tiny or otherwise, it's all pure plit summary. Regarding a second source, so what? If an article called something "mythic" in passing, how does it relate to notability? Also, per WP:GOOGLEHITS, please don't throw out sources if you don't even have access to them - how do you know they even discuss this topic? So far zero sources that go beyond plot summary have been presented, and per NFICTION (and GNG), that's just not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Every single sentence that mentions DR is pure plot summary"? What about:

Gender, Feminism, and…: "Finally, as opposed to Kitty’s and Emma’s constructions from a third wave feminist perspective, Danger seems to be constructed as a radical feminist character as viewed through a third wave feminist lens." "Danger is born from a literal revolution of consciousness; she becomes newly sentient and realizes that she is forced into a role that is not fulfilling and in which she cannot reach her potential." "Danger herself and her conflict with the X-Men are also similar to radical feminism through patriarchy, essentialism, and separatism. That Danger is a female character is crucial because there is no narrative reason that Danger needs to be female other than to align her with the feminism present in the rest of the text. Not only is Danger an original character, …"

The Ages of the X-Men: "While the X-Men have been trained in hand-to-hand combat, they are much less experienced in arenas of public relations, philosophy, and theology (the X-Men's technologically advanced combat training "Danger Room" appears not to have a "debate" setting)." - Granted, that one takes rephrasing to make it obvious how the presentation of the Danger Room tells us something about the X-Men (franchise).

100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die: "There really was not anything like it in comics when it [the Danger Room] was introduced. ... The Danger Room would continue to be a mainstay of X-Men comics over the years, although as time went on, a little bit of the novelty wore off as the concept of a high-tech training cneter was now omnipresent in superheor comic books. ... However, it was not too late for the Danger Room to still surprise fans!..."

And real world effect rather than "analysis" per se: Cognitive Rehabilitation Specialization Portfolio: "The Danger Room in X-Men comics--much like Star Trek's concept of the Holodeck, a hologram grid room deck of their aircraft--is a simulation space engineered to imitate multiple scenarios. With modern technology, ... many of the simulations that we practice as counselors as role-plays, group therapies, one on one counseling, etc, can easily be transferred into computer programs. ... There are rudimentary frameworks that can develop into ideas like Cerebro and the Danger Room such as a new device being implemented in New Jersey knows as TACT." Ethics, Security, and the War Machine: The True Cost of the Military: "Hazma Shaban, technology writer for The Atlantic, describes one such war theatre simulator as “a primitive version of Star Trek’s Holodeck or the X-Men’s Danger Room”"

MTV: "The long familiar scenes of ... the X-Men training in the mythic Danger Room" (just like the quote from 100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die) is a secondary source that says exactly what User:Toughpigs used as one part of the deprodding rationale: that "the Danger Room is well known and viewed as an iconic part of the X-Men mythos".

We also do know that the two other sources I asked about actually dicuss the topic - if Google is to be trusted at all - because Google gives us preview sections here and here. These don't tell us the extent, or if they have analysis or not; but why shouldn't it be legitimate to ask if anyone had access here? I did not base my argumentation on those. WP:GOOGLEHITS also does not fit here. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources provided above, which are enough to pass GNG. I also agree that the encyclopedias are secondary sources as they are published by third parties. They are also clearly not comic books. I view the encyclopedias as a good baseline for articles; if a character is not even worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, they are likely not worthy of articles. Rhino131 (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm confused as to what anyone is seeing in the above sources that can constitute analysis. If your baseline for "significant coverage" is a single adjective, then all I can say is your standards are absolutely atrocious. On the topic of secondary encyclopedias, if they cannot be used to cite anything but the plot, then they are useless for the purpose of the encyclopedia and do not provide significant coverage. If it's interchangeable for a primary source, then there is no need for its inclusion in the article aside from linkdumping to make the topic appear more important. TTN (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, did you actually have a look at Gender, Feminism, and Heroism in Joss Whedon and John Cassaday’s Astonishing X-Men Comics (and take into account that this article is both about "Danger Room" the room and "Danger" the sentient entity)? Otherwise, can you point us to where the guidelines say that secondary/tertiary sources providing plot-summary are "useless for the purpose of the encyclopedia". I totally agree that a proper encyclopedic article should have more than plot summary. But I think that an article about a fictional entity without plot summary would be incomplete and a disservice to the reader. And I think the guidelines see it the same way. Daranios (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you're including the personification. It's a character that exists independently of the concept of the room after its initial storyline, and it only exists in a singular comic line. That'd be line combining JARVIS and Vision together just because of what happens in the MCU. I wouldn't be against an attempt at making an article out of "Danger," but I don't think anything to do directly with the character has any relevance to the room other than poor article management.

If a source can be replaced by primary source with no information or context lost to it, that means the source does not provide any context of its own to add to the article. That means if cannot be said to provide significant coverage, which means it's useless in terms of meeting GNG. That is the case of the majority of these comics encyclopedias. If there is something that dubs itself an encyclopedia that actually provides its own unique commentary, I wouldn't dismiss it just because of the name, but someone would need to actually show it's something worthwhile. TTN (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely include the personification of the Danger Room (that apparently exists) as part of the overall article. They are meant to be the same entity. Notability of the humanoid version is still notability of the Danger Room as a whole._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if such a merger made sense, we still haven't proven the notability of the humanoid version. Despite all the comic cruft, until now, nobody has even tried to make an article about it... was an important/notable character like this really skipped? This is simply a red flag suggesting that the humanoid version of the room is even less notable than the room itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Piotrus, have you looked through the article as it is now? It says that it is also about "Danger" the character in the last sentence of the introductory part, and then about half the article (the sections Sentience and Powers and abilities) are about that character. We don't need to merge, the article already is about both. Which makes sense, if e.g. the sentence "the Danger Room developed self-awareness as "Danger"" is correct (which is supported by the secondary sources). If those two sides were not in the same article already, we should have discussed a merger here if we have potentially insufficient secondary sources for either one to combine to a worthwhile article, as preserving content by merging is preferred to deletion by Wikipedia's standards! For the importance of the character, the fact that it has a 17 page chapter called "Danger’s Radical Feminist Villainy" in Gender, Feminism, and... should go a long way to prove it. As it is, I think the secondary sources found so far together already allow for creation of a non-stubby article that does not violate WP:ALLPLOT by someone who is actually willing to improve the article as it is. I also think there are even more out there. If you don't believe that, just continue the searches suggested right there in the AfD notice (maybe adding "X-Men" to the search parameters for ease of use). Daranios (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: I don't see why a one-page-entry in a secondary source which is summarizing plot about a fictional element with numerous different appearances should not be "significant". I don't think that is in WP:GNG, we are now interpreting it. Of course there is another guideline which requires us to provide information beyond plot summary. So if we had only secondary source providing only plot summary, we should not have a standalone article. But if there are enough secondary sources, big or small, to allow us to fullfill WP:NOTPLOT and write more than "only a few sentences" or "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", to quote WP:N, why should we not have an article? Daranios (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the information extracted from the source is no different than what can be found in a primary source, what is that source offering? What is significant about that source? Each source needs to be judged both on its own inherent reliability and what is actually brings to the article. That something is reliable does not mean it is necessary if the context it provides is trivial or non-existent. If I can go through and replace it with primary sources, then there is literally no reason for it to have been there in the first place. The only benefit would be if the user does not know the origin of a particular in-universe fact but wants to otherwise use one of those encyclopedias as a temporary stop-gap until that is found. The only things that have any impact for fictional topics are sources providing real world information. I don't think that has been fulfilled for the primary topic, and I don't think a related, but otherwise separate topic should be even discussed in this context. TTN (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia seems to prefer secondary sources over primary ones. Of course they are not needed in every case. But the nominator wants to have them, because the article is accused of being partially original research, and the topic of not meeting WP:GNG. So even if secondary sources only provides the same information than primary sources, they make sure that content is not OR (even if the same could often be assumed in good faith). And the notability guideline uses the existence of secondary sources as its main criterion (or in other words, if someone thought they could make money or gain a reputation by writing about the topic). Here specifically, however, plot summarys about the Danger Room/Danger as a whole seem to be important to me, because the topic has appeared in so many instances over a wide range of years and individual media. So to achieve the same quality of plot summary a secondary source can provide using primary sources only, many citations would be needed. And then we would probably be back at the accusation of OR. Daranios (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above or merge to X-Men per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument made by ZXCVBNM and Andrew. Also, I should point out that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not a requirement or a guideline. It is an essay on notability, which I quote "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." This refutes part of the nominator's argument that it doesn't pass a "specific requirement" as there is currently no clear consensus as to how notability affects fictional topics in a specific and distinct way, and only the guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability applies, which means the same as everything else. Haleth (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources previously listed, there are several that go much further into detail about its creation by Lee & Kirby than the article currently does. I own them in print, and I apologize that I can't positively identify them at this moment. Probably Marvel Comics: The Untold Story and/or The Wonder Years. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Piotrus' discounting a source because it shows "Wolverine jumping around." A clear case of IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first thing I would like to point out is that Toughpigs isn't wrong about the Danger Room being a substantial part of the X-Men mythos (on a sidenote, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES may not be a substantive argument for an AfD vote, but deprodders only have to consider whether the nomination is likely to be controversial). But more importantly is the coverage and quotations provided by Daranios above, which cover the topic from a real world perspective and even provide critical analysis. I have read through the counterarguments, but I just don't find any of them convincing. The sources were immediately accused of being all plot summary, which honestly happens every time someone provides coverage for a fictional element (because apparently WP:ALLPLOT = Any plot, even when there's an overwhelming consensus from everyone else that the sources are sufficient). Dark knight 2149 06:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments made by Daranios and Andrew Davidson. /Julle (talk) 14:25, 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 redirect to Captain Atom#Rogues gallery. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Spectro[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 "This is a notable Captain Atom villain. Perhaps we can put this through AFD instead." Well, we can always discuss it here, but we need sources that say he is notable (major, significant, etc.) that go beyond mentions in passing or plot summaries, and I don't see anything. Do you? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 12 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} 06:32, 12 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} 06:32, 12 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} 06:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Atom#Rogues gallery. That section is sufficient to cover any important information about this character, as I don't see sources that would help this article pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain Atom#Rogues gallery, per Rhino131. If Rtkat3 can substantiate that the topic is independently notable, my advice would be to do so. Dark knight 2149 06:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have added a second secondary source. Those together still miss WP:GNG in my opinion, so as long as noone finds more, I vote for a merge. I think, however, it should not be simply redirected (or even deleted), because the suggested target, Captain Atom#Rogues gallery, would be improved by including the content based on secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of DC Comics characters: D or the rogues gallery section of Captain Atom. If it is merged with the rogues gallery section of Captain Atom, the information about him will have to be placed there. Anyone who goes with Keep will have to look for sources to make it notable. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to make something notable (related: WP:NTEMP). It either is or it isn't, and that depends largely on the criteria established at WP:N and the existence of significant coverage. Dark knight 2149 05:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Atom#Rogues gallery, per above. Noms rationale is solid, redirect target is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now parts based on three secondary sources to WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. No objection to merging any content after redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 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 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryst, IIT Delhi[edit]

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

Mostly self promotion article. absolutely no notable coverage apart from usual PR in media. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 12 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) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2017-08 RHAPSODY( Annual social of MEDICAL COLLEGE , KOLKATA) ✗ delete

Logs: 2018-02 move to → Tryst (festival)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carbunup River, Western Australia. Please stop telling users in advance of any actions that they arevignorant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Deadly[edit]

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

Similar to Bunbury Wildlife Park, this appears to be a local attraction with a lack of substantial third-party coverage outside of a hundred TripAdvisor hits. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carbunup River, Western Australia - the park is already mentioned at that page. Not enough notability for a separate article but the suburb redirect is an appropriate alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and before an ignorant nominator closes this to say redirect is inappropriate, I'm suggesting it is best redirected there because the content is better placed in the subject article than in its own one. Deus et lex (talk) 12:16, 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. There is general consensus that the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Wasfi[edit]

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

First deletion discussion in 2010 closed as no consensus. Although there are no hits on Google Newspapers, ~8 items come up across a couple versions of Google News, including: a MintPress News article primarily covering a somewhat-viral activist speech she made on facebook, another MNP article that briefly cites her, a post on HackRead about a hacker who left one of her youtube videos on a Uganda government site, a Middle East Eye article written by her, an MEE article briefly quoting her, and an Institute for Public Accuracy piece that quotes her. She is also occasionally cited as an expert in other news reports that weren't curated by Google News for whatever reason, and seems to speak at some conferences. The first MPN article provides the most coverage of her by far, however it is a deprecated source. Do these establish general notability? JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability is established by those sources. But am not sure either. Balle010 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is this which promotes her tour, but non-Google searches of my own didn't bring up anything else/more than passing mentions or quotes. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist with insufficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added some more references including two books that refer to her, as well as two of her own publications, which I think enable her to meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding more refs. I do want to ask if a single paragraph in a book is sufficient coverage for notability? My interpretation of GNG is that the citations to her Congressional testimony, LiberateThis site, personal publications, and conference speech announcement shouldn't be used to assess notability (details sourced solely to those refs are also probably UNDUE in the article itself). It's also hard to say whether news articles and books citing her opinion on a topic–and inserting the requisite brief blurb of her background for context–actually satisfies the requirements, as these pieces of information are not generally about her any more than an article on a disease that quotes a research professor is about the professor. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a run-down of the refs so far (minus the understandingdeeppolitics.org one that I just removed since it's a conspiracy site):

A speech by Wasfi on YouTube.
An interview of her in a news aggregator site conducted by an anonymous "Newsmaster". This site doesn't seem to have a distinct editorial team, although it says the articles it aggregates are hand-picked. It doesn't say anything about editorial oversight for its original contributions.
Bio of Wasfi from her website (LiberateThis.com).
YouTube video of her Congressional testimony.
A single quote from one of her speeches in a Christian book.
A short guest opinion piece on EngagingPeace.com by a teenager who was inspired by a series of articles by Wasfi published on the same site.
A Siasat article rehosting her YouTube video and its transcription, along with an almost word-for-word copy of an old version of her wiki page.
Six sentences in a book of "censored news stories" from 2009, the first three basically a summary of her bio on wiki.
An article by Wasfi on informationliberation.com.
A history memoir that mentions Wasfi's conference speech running overtime, causing the author's panel to start late.
NYU's announcement of the conference she spoke at.
A journal article containing selected quotes from interviews of 14 North American activists who had lived in Iraq. Of the 14, only Wasfi and Kathy Kelly have wiki articles or are even mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. I know this isn't a good barometer of reliability, but it does demonstrate the criteria used for choosing interviewees was unrelated to being high-profile.

I think currently the refs are fairly extensive, but I'm not really convinced the coverage is truly non-trivial or significant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are a few references doesn't mean someone is necessarily notable - as I've previously noted, there's some coverage, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restless Road[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NBAND independently of their X-Factor appearance. Most of the coverage is in the context of X-Factor, so let's focus on reviewing the coverage that isn't:

[34] Interview in a publication that doesn't list any editorial information, likely unreliable and mostly non-independent.
[35] WP:ROUTINE coverage of a release, not significant
[36] routine coverage announcing an upcoming concert, not significant
[37] I can't find any editorial information, likely unreliable, mostly an interview and thus largely non-independent anyway
[38] No editorial information, likelly unreliable
[39] press release, not independent
[40] routine coverage of label signing
[41] routine coverage of label signing
[42] appears to be a web blog, doesn't appear to be reliable
[43] Interview with no significant independent coverage of anything post X-factor
[44] press release with a phony byline, not reliable

This was previously a redirect to The X Factor (American season 3), so redirect would be an appropriate outcome here. Bringing it to XfD as opposed to edit warring over it as Onel5969 has already attempted to convert it to a redirect only to be reverted by the initial editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Citations Removed[edit]

Excellent notes above. All problematic citations mentioned have been removed -- re: WP:GNG, there are no non-independent or advertorial sources, and there is significant coverage from reliable sources (Billboard, CMT, Sounds Like Nashville (editorial information here)) directly addressing the band and its accomplishments independent of X factor. The band has recently signed to Sony/ATV publishing, writing songs for Rascal Flatts, etc. as a songwriting trio. (Cited: [45]) --Lukelevenson (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Significant non-X Factor coverage[edit]

Have inserted additional information on the band's Billboard chart history, songwriting work for Rascal Flatts, Granger Smith, and David James, signing to Sony Music Nashville, and more history that has received significant non-X Factor coverage from WP:GNG independent, significant and reliable outlets including CMT, Billboard, and the 40-year-old trade publication Music Row Magazine.

When the band played the Today show, their debut single was peaking at No. 7 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart, as cited here:

[46]and two other Billboard charts.

Additionally, for example:

[47] posted on CMT's channel, revealing the band's ongoing work with producer Dann Huff and studio work with Kane Brown.
[48] announcing the band's signing to Sony/ATV music publishing.
[49] the band has written songs for Rascal Flatts, Granger Smith, and David James.

--Lukelevenson (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the additional sources provided by Lukelevenson, the charting singles are for songs that are co-authored with other artists, which falls in a gray area as far as establishing notability. The Music Row Magazine coverage is reliable but routine, and thus doesn't contribute much towards notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NCOMPOSER criteria 1 writing or co-writing lyrics or music for one or more notable compositions is a pass of WP:NMUSIC, also has rs coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:59, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Connor[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to pass notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Seems to have enough roles under her belt to pass notability, she would certainly be recognized by a segment of the population based on these roles. Article certainly needs to be beefed up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject meets WP:NACTOR, in my opinion, but there doesn't seem to be much by way of significant coverage. This Irish Times article, for example, is essentially just a passing mention: here. Hopefully some further sources can be found. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NACTOR ie. Has had significant roles in multiple shows". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 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 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana (band)[edit]

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

No references, other than band own archived website, tagged for neutrality - current content and a quick google does not appear to show they pass WP:MUSICBIO KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO – DarkGlow (✉) 15:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Faces[edit]

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

Non-notable (former?) contest by a non-notable company. Has previously been PRODed. StarM 18:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Some of the cited sources are WP:RS/WP:IS and show WP:SIGCOV. Why do you think it fails WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Meliora (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply the only one that appeared independent and wasn't a press release or re-issue thereof is this French one, although I cannot read the Chinese source. To me it didn't seem to be enough to establish notability, but happy to discuss. StarM 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 seem to help. Not sure 11 12 13 are not independent. But anyway, I think I confused this with Fresh Faces of Iowa, which has given us Ashton Kutcher :P Seems a common name for modeling competitions. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The British Theatre Guide[edit]

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

NC in 2014, but no evidence in the intervening six years that this is a notable website or theatre guide. StarM 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be one of many websites... Nothing about it from neutral third-party sources. Having a website for 20+ years isn't notable, you simply keep paying the domain registrar. Would need a write-up in a newspaper or some such thing about it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Local Living[edit]

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

This is apparently a political party whose role is limited to two local government areas. Theonly way an article could be produced on such a localized topic is by including excessive detail, which is what has been done here. This is not of nationwide or more general significance.

The references are almost entirely from the group itself or from local newspapers. The one that say BBC are worded in a way which makes the look national, but they are not. They're from BBC Dorset, the local edition or distribution. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, below the threshold. Local news interest only. Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the few times I would disagree here. I would argue that municipal representation is enough to pass notability. Coverage is naturally going to be localized given that it is a local political party. Despite being a WP:OSE copout, there are several examples of municipal political parties passing muster (Projet Montreal, Surrey First, Burnaby Green Party) and several others that exist, but are woefully undersourced (which truthfully undercuts my argument, lol). In the end, I don't care either way, but I still think this passes notability due to representation. Bkissin (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party doesn't meet the threshold of notability due to it being local. Plus, it only seems to have gotten local coverage. Although I don't feel like doing it, one could argue that the other local political party articles could probably be deleted for the same reason. I'd imagine they would have to be especially unique to garner enough non-local coverage to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of references above to this article failing to reach "the threshhold" but no actual identification of what that threshold is supposed to be. Applying WP:ORG and WP:AUD we're left with BBC references to establish notability. I disagree with DGG as I think the BBC News references are clearly national news, albeit the local news section of it (the comparison is the the New York Times reporting on news in New York - the audience for that news extends far beyond New York). However the BBC mentions are not WP:SIGCOV since ALL is only briefly mentioned. As such WP:ORG is failed. I agree with Bkissin that local parties should generally be featured if possible, and I do not personally like WP:AUD as a rule (a Maltese newspaper is "national" but the London Evening Standard is "local"?), but it is not for us to simply disapply the rules. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the NYT reporting in NYC in the main paper, they used to have separate supplementary sections, for Long Island, and for other suburbs. The material in those supplements was not up to the same standards, and I have never used it on WP. I consider that to be the analogy. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nominator - @DGG: Given that the article Poole People Party also appear to be a local-only party competing in the same area, do you believe that it should be put up for AfD as well? On the same matter, do you believe that the articles at Category:Locally based political parties in England should be reviewed for national notability and those that fail be put up in a group AfD? (It would range in quality between articles like Boston Bypass Independents and articles like Middlewich First) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, the easy parts: I would never include diverse organizations of the same type in a single AfD; in most such cases it turns out that some are more notable or at least better referenced than others.

Second, decisions at WP:AFD are erratic enough that it doesn't make sense to go by precedent, however desirable it might theoretically be. Forvery similararticles, there will typically be different results based on various extraneous factors, such as local knowledge, and the inclinations of those who appear. For successive AfDs of the same article, different results are both common and expected. When I came here. 14 years ago, it was obvious that almost anything could be deleted by renominating in sufficient times; although it is not the practice to renominate as rapidly as people did then, something similar can still happen, especially when there are a few people dedicated to removing an article, whether for good reasons or for prejudice, and the supporters are scattered.

And one very recent improvement is the recognition at Deletion Review that old AfDs of an article are not necessarily relevant to current standards. I don't think this has yet been formalized, but many admins will often not delete by G4 if the AfD is too far back.

But, re-reading the article and following the references and links, I've concluded that by my standards this party is notable, because it has actually succeeded in electing candidates in significant elections. Not being up-to-date with British local political organization, I tried in response to this afd to learn something about it, if only at the level of WP articles, and I see that I under-rated the current significance of the county and district councils.

I: cannot simply withdraw the AfD, because 2 other WPedians have !voted Delete. But I want to:

withdraw the delete recommendation implied by the nomination, and change my !vote to Keep. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I will say that your response surprised me a bit, but I can understand it. (I will say that this is an odd situation where a decently sourced article is up for AfD compared to others in the same category.) Given your comments, I am going to say that we should Keep the article as the only problem I really see is that there are sources that could be added to the article, but are not. Still, I was able to find five independent sources including the ones in the article that could be useable. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Hopefully these would be sufficient to satisfy the claims of no reliable sourcing. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GROUP. Just being a local political party or independent political movement is not inherently notable. Being a group, residents Group, area group (The Cynon Valley Party), political arm (Cross-Community Labour Alternative), political statement group or party (Official Monster Raving Loony Party), animal Politics, or any other special interest group that can be formed by registering before an election, still depends on the notability sourcing requirements. Notability: {{tq|the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and WP:V#Reliable sources and notability, If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The two BBC sources are not even about the subject but the "Dorset's nine councils to merge into two unitary authorities." Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria should also be considered. Extra comments: Independent groups that form can join other parties or groups to form a coalition or coalition club. Currently there is one "party" member elected in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council and four in the Dorset Council. Regardless, these are very local council seats from a local group. The can of worms would be that all forms of local entities, regional, county (parish), police jury, and other strictly encyclopedic non-notable, mainly primary sourced with possible a local reference or two, would be eligible for consideration under a relaxed criteria. It would not make sense to allow a local political faction an article without allowing the entity it represents to also have an article. Where is the encyclopedic value in either of those? Now multiply the number of countries (195 including two observer states) by the number of regional, sub-regional, state, and local areas and parties for a possible total of multiple thousands of poorly sourced articles. I realiaze other stuff is not supposed to be a good argument but it happens almost daily. It might look good for Wikipedia article number expansion but poorly sourced local parties and councils (juries) will be a degradation. It should not be forgotten that this usually includes the names of living people that is supposed to have a higher source requirement. Otr500 (talk) 14:45, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sau Saal Baad[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to a listings site and IMDb (neither of which is WP:RS) since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search both for the English and the Hindi (सौ साल बाद) title turned up nothing better. (It is necessary to include the year, 1966, in any search, because another film with the same title was released in 1989.) The plot in IMDb and in this blog are word-for-word identical with the one in the article, which may or may not indicate a copyright problem. According to this blog, "[the film] was not much successful on the screen". Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added, notability established. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep excercising WP:AGF as I can't access all of the sources, it has coverage in multiple reliable sources added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A film starring Firoz Khan and Kumkum would definitely have got coverage at that time. Added sources make it meet the notability requirements.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:38, 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blink Twice[edit]

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

I have strong doubts about the notability of this band, another one of the creations of the now-indeffed User:Soul Crusher. The sources all appear to be unreliable blogs, blank AllMusic entries, primary sources, and brief mentions in record catalogs. Not finding anything better in a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like another one of Soul Crusher's NN industrial rock articles. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band's four remaining album pages as well, as if Blink Twice goes, they will be open to WP:A9, so they might as well be handled all at once:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per accurate description by nom. No evidence of notability. Another non-notable underground band by Soul Crusher. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per Nom. Fails WP:BAND. Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The fact that the articles were created by Soul Crusher is almost reason enough in and of itself given the user's history of creating articles for endless amounts of totally irrelevant albums. Ss112 07:19, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayantan Ghosal[edit]

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

It so seems that this Ghosal article was created by a sockpuppet and the strangest thing is, users who have edited the subject's article have only been involved in editing this vanity article. It does not end here. Most of the sources cited on this article are either irrelevant or do not exist. This vanity article which seems to have been created by the subject itself should be deleted at the soonest.Non notable director with no indication of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has done few television shows but hasn't directed significant or multiple notable shows. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON Cinewoman06 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinewoman06: Get your facts straight if you're going to nominate articles for deletion. The article was not created by a sockpuppet. Csgir is an editor in good standing. There is only one edit by a known sockpuppet, and the other chief contributors have edited other pages. So the bulk of your rationale is invalid. It would seem unlikely that a director would have to satisfy the WP:NACTOR criteria, and you've made no effort to explain why you think he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Did you perform due diligence to look for quality sources as required by WP:BEFORE? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, thank you for the note of confidence. Seems like this account was created for these AFD nominations. Csgir (talk) 11:40, 16 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the page creator. Have cleaned up the page since my last visit. Csgir (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD nominator does not state why a film director needs to meet WP:NACTOR guidelines. Csgir (talk) 11:43, 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. Sandstein 19:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Layer type[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Sources in the article are to a Programming reference for Windows Driver Kit, s discussion forum, Reddit, and Wikipedia. BEFORE showed nothing that contains SIGCOV. The article is about a technical detail, article sources and BEFORE show this; artoc;e is not about an encyclopedic topic WP:NOTEVERYTHING. // Timothy :: talk 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to book type as a related concept (maybe a sentence could be added there). This is indeed some seriously crap sourcing, and I can't find anything to improve it with. Book type doesn't sparkle in that regard, but there are solid sources available for that ([50]) even if they are not used. In contrast, all I can find for "layer type" is lots of dual- vs single-layer disc topics. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. I'm not sure if redirecting to book type is even feasible without non-questionable sources to support any info inserted there. This looks like something more suited for a glossary of DVD/optical disc terms (but we don't have one). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:54, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gannow Green[edit]

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

Non-notable town that has been unsourced since 2008 Majash2020 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has completely failed to carry out WP:BEFORE. Article is now expanded and sourced. I remember when this used to be a wiki... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be that significant a hamlet, it can be included in New Frankley. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added now clearly demonstrate notability Spiderone 13:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Towns are always notable per WP:GEOLAND. And sources are only required for controversial claims and quotations per WP:V. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson and Majash2020: - I've got no opinion on the notability of this subject at the moment, but the claim that this is a town appears to be incorrect ... this appears to be some sort of forest based on the references. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which references say that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pigsonthewing - Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this, I didn't have this discussion watchlisted. The Ordnance Survey reference says Name: Gannow Green, Bromsgrove Place type: Woodland Or Forest. The other sources just use it as a landmark or call it "Gannow Green Farm". I'm not finding a whole lot that definitively says what it is, but I am in the US, and my search engine downweights non-US sites. This calls it an "agricultural feature", but it's nowhere near RS, so I don't really trust whatever it says. It's possible there's a town named after the green that I'm finding, but considering that the article itself calls Gannow Green an "area", it could well be a locally prominent woodland. I think this may be a small woodland of some sort, but I'm not 100% sure. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have to agree with those who doubt that it is or was ever a town. None of the references supplied calls it a town, and the Ordinance Survey map doesn't show one, or for that matter, enough room for there to have been one. The OS "Get Outside" reference specifically calls it a "Woodland Or Forest"; the Historic England reference refers to "Gannow Green Farm"; and the BWAS reference on the moated site describes the latter as the site of "a substantial medieval house with the stone wall being a status symbol rather than being needed for defence." I'm having a great deal of trouble seeing how this passes any sort of notability guideline, but I really can't see it as a legally recognized settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the civil parish. As stated above, there's really no evidence that this place was ever a legally recognized municipality, also fails GNG. (t · c) buidhe 18:06, 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. It needs to be better sourced as a keep argument is not persuasive when there is clear evidence that the sourcing is inafequate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Regular Army regiments (1994)[edit]

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

The lead reads "This is a list of British Regular Army regiments in the after the defence cuts of the Options for Change defence white paper in 1991." But that is a three-year gap. There are no references here at all to prove these units were formed after the Options for Change White Paper. Basically this is a directory and nears WP:ARTN. Unless you can prove the units below existed due to the Options for Change White Paper within three years the article can be kept. The article fails WP:ARTN and WP:GNG. BlueD954 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be better sourced and repurposed to cover the organisation immediately after Options for Change, but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of units after a major reorganisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of you address the issue. All you want is to see an unsourced list that make no linkage. Given evidence how the list of units were formed three years after the Options for change. BlueD954 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say the units were formed three years after Options for Change? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And see WP:SALAT and WP:NNC. Yes, it needs better sourcing, but claiming that the structure of the British Army does not meet WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is ludicrous is you calling this a structure. It's a list of units with no references BlueD954 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced, lacks all evidence of notability. WP:NNC is never a reason to keep a list, it is an argument about entries within a list only. The overall subject of the list needs to be notable, entries in the list don't. As for WP:SALAT, scroll down to the subsection "Citing sources": "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources." SALAT (and NNC) don't mean that lists don't have to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've rewritten the lede as coming from "the post-Cold War restructuring resulting from the Options for Change defence white paper 1991." which explains the context better.
Delete Completely unsourced list with no evidence of notability, fails WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hamilton[edit]

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

I have a suspicion that this article may possibly be a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Winter, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/48 Belgrave Square, all for articles by the same author. Of the two references, I was able to track down the Burke Peerage, which mentions a Lt. Col Christopher Hamilton who was knighted, but with no further biographical details. I can find no evidence that the other book listed as a reference exists. I was able to find that there was a Lt. Col Christopher Hamilton stationed on Ceylon as part of the British Army, but given that that Christopher Hamilton was apparently in the British Army in 1812 and this fellow was supposedly born in 1810, it doesn't seem to be him. I cannot find verification that a Christopher Hamilton was a MP from Tipperary. See also [article on that Parliament consituency], which doesn't mention this fellow or leave room for him to be an MP for it. I can't find any mentions of "Jane FitzGerald-de Ros", his supposed wife, in RS. She was added to her father's WP article by an IP with no source, claiming to be married to the person who this article claims to be the subject's father. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can find no RS verification that anything in this article is true. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete multiple issues as identified by nom. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even in the unlikely event that this person actually existed, it's highly unlikely that they are notable enough to warrant an article given the lack of sources available about him Spiderone 09:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Obviously if the details are correct then he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN and probably WP:SOLDIER too, but I can find no evidence of his existence. The man claimed to be his father, Major-General Christopher Hamilton, certainly existed, and that's probably the chap that Hog Farm has found (although he was never knighted; he was appointed CB though). He was commander of British troops in SW Ireland (headquartered in Limerick), but not County Dublin as the article claims. There was also no Henry Hamilton who was Archdeacon of York, as this article claims Christopher's son was. So yes, it is looking increasingly like a hoax. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't go as afar as saying this is necessarily a hoax, but it clearly appears mistaken and/or lacking sources to establish notability. Even assuming good faith of the two references provided in the article, one of them is labelled "privately published" meaning it is not a likely reliable source, and as such this fails WP:GNG. My searches have drawn the same blank that others have, and as such this article cannot be saved. feel free to ping me if sources are found. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article also has evidence of hoax. Not my area of expertise, and I don't rely on WP as a source per see, but his son who was, according to this article, Archdeacon, is not on that list. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Spiderone says. (I don't know if it's a hoax, but if it is, it sure is an odd one.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was no Christopher Hamilton who served in the position of General Officer Commanding, Ceylon. The position of Commander in Chief didn’t exist until the Second World War. There also is nobody named Hamilton who represented the Tipperary (UK Parliament constituency). This article is either a hoax or a compilation of inaccuracies. Dan arndt (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A quick google search turned up nothing, including for some of the items listed in the article. I favor deletion, but shouldn’t a post be made on the article talk page to see if there’s an explanation? Go4thProsper (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Page creator hasn't edited since 2010, so I don't think they'll be coming along to explain what's going on a talk page. I'm kinda intrigued as to whether this fellow is real or not, but I doubt we'll ever find out. Since this appears to be a hoax and has survived for 10 years, should it be added to the list of hoaxes after deletion? Hog Farm _Bacon 03:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously if the details were true he would pass WP:NPOL, but that's precisely why I always point out that the notability test is not passed by what the article says, but by how well the article is referenced to reliable sources which properly verify that the things it says are true. People can and do try to insert lies into Wikipedia all the time, so just claiming passage of a notability criterion still doesn't exempt a person from having to have real sources. Obviously, if better sources can be found in the future to prove that he really existed, then an article could be recreated at that time — but there's enough doubt about this that the burden of proof would fall on the (re)creators rather than the gainsayers, and I won't be holding my breath in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus appears to agree this is a hoax, so early closing per WP:G3 and/or WP:SNOW may be called for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, and based on my quick research, probably as a hoax. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find it EZ[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. PRODed back in 2016, but removed by Ravinder3790 (talk · contribs), an editor heavily involved with the article who I suspect has a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI aside, the topic itself doesn't meet notability guidelines by a long shot. There is no significant coverage and that coverage that does exist comes from blogs and non-reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juji (dog)[edit]

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

Okay, this is a weird one. There is some coverage, but in my opinion, not enough in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable dog who's owner has produced some photoshopped photos. Most of the article and the sources are about the dog's owner and his photoshop skills. --John B123 (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, not everything that might cause a blip in the news cycle is wikinotable (and if Juji was a person, would definitely not meet WP:ANYBIO:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 13:21, 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 redirect to Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prankster (Charlton Comics)[edit]

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

A non-notable character that appeared in a single issue of a comic book. There are no reliable sources currently in the article, and searching for additional sources turns up very little. The character is mentioned in a few books as something that was worked on by Dennis O'Neil, but the coverage is limited to just demonstrating that it existed, with no actual indication of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. Several passing mentions, and a paragraph of in-universe information can be found in the external links section, but nothing that would cause this character to pass [[WP:GNG]. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kombëtare[edit]

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

Unsourced article apparently created by the editor in chief of the paper. The article has remained unsourced for 7 years and the newspaper apparently no longer exists and from what I can gather from the Albanian language article , which is just a gallery of its front pages, it only existed for a month or so. Nothing found in a before search and the subject's website is no longer actif. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, likely WP:SELFPROMOTION. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG which is the only applicable guideline here Spiderone 19:48, 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] ttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJllB47kdk2brq4zj6_593g

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/user/coreylabarrie

[3] ttps://www.instagram.com/p/CHgX3-BpVtp/

[1]

[2]

[3]