Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 14	November 16 >

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 merge to Michigan Technological University. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huskies Pep Band[edit]

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

Article does not contain enough sources for establishing verifiability, likely written with COI, contains unencyclopedic information. Some information is probably able to be kept and merged into Michigan Technological University. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michigan Tech Huskies or Michigan Technological University; there doesn't seem to be enough coverage about the band itself for a separate article. I found an additional source that can probably help with some of the sourcing situation, but it appears hard to find online sources that go beyond simply noting the band's existence at a sporting event. Axe the excessive and hard to source details. Chris857 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michigan Technological University. I searched Google, JSTOR and NYT but only found passing references, so it fails WP:GNG. My knowledge of American scramble bands is low, but I think since the Huskies Pep Band is not an athletic team and does not compete in an athletic division it would be inappropriate to merge with Michigan Tech Huskies. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan Technological University. Agree with above Balle010 (talk) 04:27, 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. Closing this as keep. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borna Kapusta[edit]

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

Unsourced and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page now is referenced. He won silver medal in Fiba u-19 world cup and now he play in first Croatian league. ~AndreaD'orrio ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article and his performance in a FIBA U19 team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion. Balle010 (talk) 04:32, 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. Kvng did not provide any independant sources to back up his keep !vote and the three sources added by Concertmusic are either simple mentions or brief descriptions. Noone has shown evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independant sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jcarlosmartins, did you look for sources WP:BEFORE submitting this nomination? ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite simply, there are no third party references. That's sufficient reason for deletion. If someone thinks there are, let them find and add them. Considering the manner in which the article is written I think it very unlikely, for it sounds exactly like the producer wrote it: "Service Stubbing with Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality enables the testing of your SOA application prior to the creation of all services" -- and every paragraph beginnign with the full name of the product. Thats not exactly advertising, but a product manual. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Can we redirect to Rational Software as an WP:ATD?

You cannot keep a redirect if there is no referenced content on the page you want to redirect to. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete softcore ad for software. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rational Software, the company it's a product of. Does not seem to me like it warrants its own article, but could find a happy home as a subsection of another. jp×g 16:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two external link to a couple of research papers about testing in a SOA environment. The vast majority of other available references are from software companies that use this software as part of their product offerings. However, those research paper links appear to get us some way to RS.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a third reference to an academic journal.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding external links instead of references to the article text. Please, add actual references to be able to keep this article. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 19:30, 25 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. Thank you for participating in this discussion. If you have an issue with the decision made through this discussion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purva Mantri[edit]

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

non notable, there is no evidence of her winning the show, No indication of Notability Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is way passed time we purged from Wikipedia every article only sourced to the subject's own website. It is staggering how many such articles we have. Wikipedia needs to stop being a lightly annotated incomplete directory of the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I have found few references which seems to be discussing about her But I am not sure if they make her pass the GNG criteria.

Like This, This This This This and This Dtt1^Talk 17:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant sources found above; clearly meets WP:GNG because of extensive coverage in WP:RS Spiderone 23:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for more commentary/opinion regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing there to show any signs of notability. Songs have appeared in two movies, in 2011 and nothing since? Ravensfire (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Woinfosd (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:19, 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. Kvng does not adress the question of notability and Concertmusic simply show that the software is mentioned, not that the coverage is substantial. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rational solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Management[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jcarlosmartins, did you look for sources WP:BEFORE submitting this nomination? Bad sourcing is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON would you like to try another? ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software system. Article goes into a lot of depth about the detailed functions of this software which I think is just filler text to make the article not a stub. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we redierct to Rational Software as an WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot keep a redirect if there is no referenced content on the page you want to redirect to. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rational Software, per my !vote on the other AfD for the similar product from the same company. Does not have enough references or notability for its own article, but could do well as a subsection. jp×g 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search on Google Books and Google Scholars found a number of books dealing with Collaborative Application Lifecycle Management (CALM) that use this particular suite of tools in examples of good ALM. Similarly, I found 2 theses from Computer Science programs that also cite this software suite, as well as other papers, such as one from the IEEE.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:42, 24 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. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak[edit]

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

No Indication of notability. Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG even without going into Hindi coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Pharaoh of the Wizards who has also improved the article with some references. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 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. JGHowes ^talk 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACA Allertor 125[edit]

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

An article on this siren under a different name was deleted at AfD due to a lack of notability. As this is a duplicate of that topic, albeit with different content (but lacking any sources), it should also be deleted. --Pontificalibus 13:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 13:28, 30 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 (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-10 Mobil Directo ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is presumptive notability—air raid sirens are certainly a notable topic, and lots of people are aware of them—even though they may not know anything about the ones in their towns. The article might be suitable for merging with other, similar articles, since there seem to be several, although some thought might be given to whether the list of towns with one (or formerly having one) could be shrunk or put into a table to make such a merged page more manageable. I imagine some editors would be tempted to invoke WP:INDISCRIMINATE here, but I don't think that applies as well to air raid sirens as it might to say, different sizes of inlet valves used for washing machines. The fact that the article has something useful to say about the design that one can't get from say, an old catalogue or inventory that just lists models, is in its favour. The lack of sourcing is a serious issue, and it looks like it may take a fair amount of work to find good sources. But this article doesn't appear to be a hoax, so published sources presumably exist, even if finding them over the internet is difficult (and not everything reliable is on the internet). I point out that WP:NEXIST says that "[n]otability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article... 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." And there is no deadline to improve the article. So while this article clearly needs a lot of work, I don't think it should be deleted due to lack of notability (although it might, as I said, be suitable for merging with other, similar articles), or its authors' failure to provide sources. P Aculeius (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of the above contains a policy basis for keeping. If its been deleted before and the sourcing had not improved then there is only one outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable warning siren. Article is mostly just a huge (absolutely enormous) list of cities which have the siren installed. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus was reached in this discussion. @Twotwice: thanks for helping with the AfD process, but discussions should not generally be relisted more than twice. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dravida Vizhipunarchi Kazhagam[edit]

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

No indication of notability or ever having held a seat in any government. Unsourced since birth and I wasn't able to find any sources on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, it does indeed exist ([18], [19]), but I agree with nom that there's nothing suggesting GNG or NORG here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] examples of in-depth coverage on the party. Its role as BJP ally also mentioned here [25]. Alternative spelling in English here [26]. Notably, seems its the same party as Desiya Forward Bloc (see http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in/OPENFILE1.aspx?etype=SPECIAL&ID=165/GAZETTE/2013-10/31/2013 ), the two articles should probably be merged. --Soman (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made edits to the article with some sources now. I'm not sure if the sources give enough coverage to be considered significant, but they seem to meet the other criteria outlined at WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Two, twice^talk 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after contributions were made to improve the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Two, twice^talk 22:55, 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. Thank you for participating in this discussion. If you have an issue with the decision made through this discussion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ranchi[edit]

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

It's worth noting that the first three paragraphs of this article are completely irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is tall buildings in Ranchi. Another user tagged this for speedy delete but it was declined as this incarnation of the article is significantly different to the previous one. I don't know what the previous article was like but I can't imagine this is much of an improvement. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. It doesn't even seem to have the usual Emporis or Skyscraperpage coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Ranchi' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
Very few significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:OR so would strongly oppose a merge.

Similar AfDs for reference: Gwalior and Macon Spiderone 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am not able to find references (neither for the topic as whole, nor for the individual buildings). As it stands, the information is unverified and I support deletion.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable list of tall buildings. Most of the buildings listed are themselves non-notable and have no article, which means that this article shoun'nt exist. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous AfD. This article is unsourced and all the buildings are non-notable. Salt if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
Delete as list of non-notable items.--Hippeus (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable list of tall buildings. Woinfosd (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12. The text in the article is copy pasted from various places around the internet, e.g. http://jubileeonline.ca/location/ranchi, https://medium.com/@mediblisstransaction/ranchi-bangalore-of-the-east-65cbce66ee2d, and the images are badly done crops of copyrighted images lifted from various sites around the internet. If this user's common's talk page is anything to go by we probably need a CCI here. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:LIST, WP:MILL, and my standards. Utterly a mess of a list of non-notable buildings. Since this is a re-creation after deletion, WP:SALT is allowed. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Mnop1234 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my concerns raised at prior AfD, as list details continue to fail minimal requirements for coverage from reliable publications. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:38, 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. Geschichte (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Human[edit]

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

Fails Notability, no any valid reference is provided. Sturdyankit (chat) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest gives me nothing, which is not an encouraging sign. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to have been self-published. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fiction book. The article is written like a book review and needs a WP:TNT. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is predominantly from self-published blogs, none of which look to be the type that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. The Young Folks looks a bit more promising but would not be enough on its own to establish notability. Readers' Favorite is known for being a site that churns out vanity awards and positive reviews for a fee (the first one is free). ([27], [[28], [29]) It wouldn't give any notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that another reason why it's not reliable is that the site endorses review swapping, which is seen as a TOS violation on many websites as it was discovered that the vast majority were just leaving each other glowing but disingenuous reviews, some without even reading the book in question. Been a while since that site popped up on my radar, so I'm disappointed that it's still in use. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 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 speedy keep; plenty of good sources found. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Berwick Sayers[edit]

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

The items of substantial coverage on this librarian consist of one obituary in an appropriate specialist journal. I don't believe we can make a case for WP:GNG here. My sympathies are toward keeping this kind of material (there's certainly no promotion involved) but unless someone can find some additional coverage, I don't think we have a basis of encyclopedic notability here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that took off. I was looking for further obits, seems that digging for contemporary reviews would have been more productive. Thanks guys, that's excellent sourcing. I'll withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be a case that he passes WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) the "Further reading" section cites D.J. Foskett and B.I. Palmer , eds., The Sayers Memorial Volume, London: Library Association, 1961.; and WP:NACADEMIC (which supersedes GNG) notes The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses.. Heading the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals arguably satisfies NACADEMIC C6 as well. It is also fairly easy to find reviews and analysis of his work [30][31][32][33], making a case for WP:NAUTHOR. Spicy (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the obit the nom mentions, the 'Further Reading' section already listed a memorial volume in honor of Sayers. While this volume is an offline source, p. 246 pf the obit in questions says this about its content: "The first three chapters, by J.D. Stewart, Eileen Colwell and S.P.L. Filon, are about Sayers". Pp 246-247 of the obit list several other items in the "Biographical and critical" writings about Sayers section. I found an online publicly available version of one of these items, a 1961 article in 'Annals of Library Science' by Ranganathan, S.R. Sayers and Donker Duyvis, which I have also added tp the Further Reading section. Overall, certainly enough here already to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added ten reviews of five books to the article. So in addition to the pass of WP:GNG from the published obituary and memorial volume (which was inexplicably omitted from the nomination statement) he also passes WP:AUTHOR and likely (through presidency of the Library Association) WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I'm convinced that he passes WP:AUTHOR. The Festschrift counts toward WP:PROF#C1 and the Library Association presidency counts toward WP:PROF#C6. I think that's more than enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 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. JGHowes ^talk 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Doctor Doom[edit]

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

As with the various other AfDs on these topics, this is an unnecessary plot split that fails WP:NOTPLOT. It does not possess non-trivial coverage needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. It should be summarized in the main topic, but there really isn't any worth in merging the existing content. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Doom per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content as suggested above. No evidence this merits a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Not really anything to merge when the article is WP:ALLPLOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as per consensus. The only coverage is plot information which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability as asked by the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': per nom and Jontesta. WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:GNG. There is nothing to merge as this is already covered at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I have no objection to information on particularly notable versions of Doom that have been documented in reliable, secondary sources being added to Doctor Doom, information from this article should not be merged there in order to do so, as there are no secondary sources being used here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Doom; this isn't notable in its own right and I suspect it is only a separate article in the first place due to its extreme length. jp×g 16:33, 23 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 South Florida Bulls#Facilities. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corbett Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable sports facility on a college campus. Nothing but routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Florida Bulls#Facilities - not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article is just like any other article on a college soccer stadium. Do you want all of them to be removed? This sets a bad precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolojoey (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geolojoey: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Weak Oppose.~~ Not sure what the benefit is to delete it. If a reader wished to know about the stadium, how does it help the encyclopedia to remove it? Also per Geolo. Bedfordres (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bedfordres, do you understand the notability criteria? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. When I said my earlier vote, I forgot to even consider WP:GNG, which is not very smart of me. I will look at the article again and will look for sources later. Bedfordres (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Don't think it passes notability. To my understanding, a college soccer stadium is not necessarily notable, and I don't think it otherwise passes WP:GNG. I can't figure out how to strike through only part of my original response. Sorry Bedfordres (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedfordres: - I struck it for you. Please let me know if I struck the wrong bit out. Spiderone 08:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of South Florida buildings. This is a wider problem, there are many articles about university buildings that otherwise fail notability guidelines. For now I'd suggest listifying them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Florida Bulls#Facilities - a possible search term, but does not meet notability criteria. // Timothy :: talk 10:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Florida Bulls#Facilities, merging any relevant content; obvious target, reasonable for inclusion there, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 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 keep. Meets WP:GEOFEAT (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dales Country House Hotel, Upper Sheringham[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed building, so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. Should be renamed to The Dales, Upper Sheringham, though, as that's been its name throughout most of its history and the name under which it is listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - listed building Spiderone 21:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and Spiderone. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:26, 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. There seems to be consensus that most of the sources that have been found for this hotel cover events that happened at the hotel, not the hotel itself, and therefore the hotel is not notable. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Beirut Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable, well sourced hotel.† Encyclopædius 08:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent landmark, plenty of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are nowhere near in-depth significant coverage. Most of the article just mentions various conferences that took place at the hotel - indredibly trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 19:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of significant events have happened at this hotel over the years. A major UNESCO event is one of them. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if this topic should be looked at in the context of WP:NCORP or perhaps a different set of guidelines (maybe WP:NBUILD or ..?). Under NCORP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are mere mentions due to a conference being held at the hotel, others are inclusions in lists and the topic should be Deleted or Redirected to the main [[[Crowne Plaza]] article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Geschichte says most of the sources are about events held not about the hotel itself. fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what to do with this one, as none of the sources are really about the hotel, but the hotel's claim of notability is enough that I think it would have been covered somewhere, but I have no real ability to search for those sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those which are mentioned in enough sources to worth keeping. Has anybody checked Arabic newspaper sources on this?† Encyclopædius 14:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not inherited from events that occurred at the hotel, which is what this article is sourced with. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed more WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill hotel without significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Encyclopædius and Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:Run-of-the-mill guideline says "bare mention[s]" run afoul of run-of-the mill, and the text should establish "something unusual about the subject or something that may be encyclopedic". Building notability at WP:NBUILD requires "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The term "significant coverage" is defined in WP:GNG as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Additionally, WP:GNG requires reliable, independent, secondary sources. If reliable, independent, non-trivial secondary sources are provided, notability is presumed. The article contains a number of non-trivial, reliable, independent secondary sources. Three of the sources are in-depth discussions of the hotel in question, the others are non-trivial discussions in larger workers. The text of the article clearly establishes "something unusual about the subject" (former use of the building, former federal government occupants, statue). - Tim1965 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [express] || 19:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. If this article is about a company/organization then the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. By that guideline. the references fail and I would !vote to Delete. If the article is being evaluated by the standards of other guidelines which are less strict, it may very well pass but someone else with more knowledge than me might be better positioned to provide their opinion on that. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. One of 38 it is entirity. Are we going to have all these hotels in the Hersha Hospitality Trust company on here, in directly like structure. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think it just about gets to GNG with the Washington Business Journal articles. Frommer's don't count towards sourcing. Could someone do a Washington Post search? Whether it has been covered there is probably key. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ownership change is also covered by Business Wire and Metro Weekly, while the Washington Post has a review of the Tredici Enoteca restaurant. GNG is well covered.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Washington Business Journal article is a routine announcement of a business sale and fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a business. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of Fortune (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film per ~~WP:NFF~~WP:NF, only sources are reproductions of the primary source press release and non-professional reviews, does not have significant coverage to meet ~~WP:NFF~~WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NFF applies to future films, this one has already been released. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I've amended my nomination to better reflect guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At the moment, the article has enough sources to pass notability. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has sufficient sources. --Jorm (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Four out of the six refs are press releases on Twitter and Insta (primary sources). Also, WP:NFILM clearly requires two reviews from reputed sources to establish notability, which are also currently missing. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources for research include Chico Enterprise-Record, Metro UK, Sonoma Index-Tribune, Netflix Life, Box Office Pro. Right cite (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the listed sources is in-depth coverage about the film. The first three are one sentence mentions, the one from Sonoma Index-Tribune is a casting call and Netflix life isn't RS. Again not a single review present, two of which are essential to establish notability for films. TheRedDomitor (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote by blocked suck. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not essential if the film passes WP:GNG with other coverage such as scholarly papers, detailed book coverage and so on, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to keep. I agree that there is little that's in depth about the movie out there, but plenty of small mentions, such as when Red Sea Media bought the right at Cannes, or that Lucas Oil financed the movie. For me this is a case of why not keep? The article is informative, and will satisfy a quick read to inform what the movie is about.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:21, 24 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. JGHowes ^talk 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Educational inequality in Southeast Michigan[edit]

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

This article represents a WP:NARROWCAT. There is already an article for Educational inequality in the United States; the inequality in Southeast Michigan specifically is not notable in its own right. Stonkaments (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to focus mostly on the Detroit school system, whose failures are not a result of educational inequality caused by the rest of Southeast Michigan or the state's educational department as a whole. This article is too narrow and contains a lot of irrelevant and arguably useless information. —Notorious4life (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete I will go with Notorius4life. ~Cupper (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is reasonably well written and well sourced. I also don't think it's that narrow (though, perhaps it should be named "Education inequality in Detroit, Michigan" since that appears to be the focus on the article). At a minimum, as an alternative to deletion, it should be merged into a related article, such as Detroit Public Schools Community District, Detroit#Primary_and_secondary_schools, or Michigan#Education. But I also think it could stand on its own. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article that leads with an over 50 year old report when Michigan totally restructured its spending and funding rules for schools in the mid-1990s is so out of touch with present reality as to be a total insult to understanding the topic at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep according to Docfreema24 suggestions. Well support this to be kept either with maintenance tags. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 16:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout the nominator for bringing an obviously notable topic (did you look at the citations in the article?) to AfD. Since it does focus mostly on Detroit, I would support a move to clarify the topic. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witel[edit]

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

A non-notable, now-defunct company. There are no reliable sources currently being used in the article - they are either directory pages or the same press release that was posted on multiple sites and used as multiple sources to try to inflate the reference count. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. It does not look like this company was ever notable, and as it does not appear to still be in business, it is doubtful that it ever will gain any. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the company passes WP:NCOMPANY. Old spam/ad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search does not raise sufficient sources to establish notability. Mathias (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A long-term article by a WP:SPA, setting out a start-up company's proposition. The exising sources are poor and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 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 keep. Ultimately, the participants in the discussion argued that WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply to this article because, regardless of whether it ultimately takes place, the event has already had real world implications and RS coverage. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II[edit]

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

This falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Queen is 94 now and there is no guarantee that she will still be around. At best this could be in her article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTCRYSTAL starts with Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions (emphasis mine). I agree that it's not guaranteed to happen, should the Queen die before it happens, but this article has presumably been created in line with the fact that planning has started—much as the 2020 Summer Olympics are not guaranteed to happen next year (and I think you'd need an actuary and/or a public health specialist to accurately assess which was more likely), but there's still an article on the preparation. In this case, there's a source already in the article from The Guardian (a republican paper, so not known for reporting on royal fluff); there's also a couple of sources from the BBC, and the official Government press release. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jubilee is a planned official event and has been reported in reliable sources. Notable. MurielMary (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only reason for deletion is not relevant because this is a major special event, not just a person's expected birthday. News stories, official preparation etc. will only ramp up the closer we get. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is predicting an event 2 years in the future related to a person who is over 90 years old. This is the perfect example of a failure of not crystal. The likelihood that this will not happen is significant, high enough that there is no reason to have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Although I understand WP:Crystal and this seems somewhat early I am leaning towards keep. We've had FIFA World Cup articles created years in advanced! @Johnpacklambert: failure of not crystal? :/ Govvy (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are ignoring that this is specifically dependent on someone being alive in 2 years. Sporting events every current member of a team could die and they would still go on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to go back to my previous example, but what about the 2021 Olympics, or similar sporting events next year that have a relatively high chance of being cancelled due to COVID? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seasons five and six of The Crown are at least as anticipated as this event, all of which will occur in 2022. I'm not !voting; just here to warn and to advise. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Preparations are now underway and a couple of important decisions have been taken (the medal and the bank holiday). I take the point that there are reasons why this might not happen, but the same could be argued of many other events, and the plans themselves might well still be notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article as it was apparent that preparations are being made for such an event. In the event of it not occurring, it will no doubt still be of interest as a curio. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Preparations have begun, sources have reported, etc. — Mainly 02:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:09, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Choiwc (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pieke Roelofs[edit]

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

~~Subject of article does not satisfy WP:BIO.~~

Subject's work on various social issues such as #filmzedan and Stichting Cassandra are either only supported by primary sources or not supported at all, so Subject cannot be considered as a public figure under the criteria of WP:BASIC.

Subject may still not satisfy notability when considered as a crime victim. Subject may fall under the criteria for people notable for only one event (WP:1E). Subject is only notable for her alleged assault, rape, and subsequent libel against her by a former colleague. While Subject's experiences are shocking and may hold merit, the events described in the article are all related to the same aforementioned event. Since both the event (criminal activity directed against one person) and the Subject (a private person who may not be notable for other activities, as stated above) may not be notable, the present article does not satisfy notability and merits prompt deletion as per Wikipedia policy.

However, since I cannot read Dutch or any other language in which the cited resources are written, I cannot vouch for the article's notability (or lack thereof) with full confidence. I would like to invite administrators and moderators fluent in the language to review the cited references and consider whether the article merits deletion.

This is my first experience with proposing article deletion, so I hope that moderators etc. can give me the benefit of the doubt regarding any violations of protocol, procedure, or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Feel free to make suggestions on my talk page etc. etc. so I may improve. - Choiwc (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Situation far too complicated for discussion in AfD. May have inflamed passions counterproductive to Wikipedia. I apologise for causing a nuisance. - Choiwc (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most sources are about her case and do not go in to detail about Roelofs or they just mention her. This source is definitely reliable and significant coverage (national newspaper), but that is just one. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In reference to your opening remarks, Stichting Cassandra is a legal foundation, not a “social event.” The fact that the user proposing this page be deleted cannot even read the sources quoted in the article tells me this is a spurious endeavour beyond my understanding. Happy to amend any inaccuracies purported to be found within the article. As far as I’m concerned, the factual declarations are rigorously backed with secondary sources. However, scrutiny is always welcome. - Dom Forde (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have corrected the characterisation of Ms Roelofs's work in legal issues and social movements, and I thank him/her for the reminder—that was an error on my part. Despite this error, I believe my case for deletion remains sound. IMO Forde's objections are twofold: first, that my illiteracy in Dutch precludes me from evaluating whether the information presented in the sources supports the claims in the article; second, that as far as he/she knows, all said claims are accurate.

Regarding the first objection, I have clearly stated in my nomination that I await the efforts of Dutch-literate editors in evaluating the substance of the cited sources. Indeed, Tristan Surtel has done this, and has found that 'most sources are about [Ms Roelofs's] case and do not go in to[sic] detail about Roelofs or just mention her'. According to WP:NOENG, 'if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page'. I believe that this implies that the onus is on the author, not myself or other Dutch-illiterate editors, to understand and present the material in the sources in a format comprehensible to English speakers. The author is reminded that, no offence meant, this is English Wikipedia and editors should not be expected to understand any other language while discussing articles. If the author wishes to bring up the sources written in Dutch as support for his position, it would be best if he/she could provide a translation of the relevant material. Otherwise, I and other editors will take Surtel's summary, along with any other translations posted here, as fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Wikipedia:Verifiability dictates that English-speaking editors are qualified to review any article in English Wikipedia regardless of the language of the sources.

As a side note, it seems that the author believes that my nomination is spurious, and therefore in bad faith. I would like to reassure him/her that this is not the case: I came across this article in the new page feed a few weeks ago, reviewed it, thought it not notable, and made a note to nominate it for deletion at a later date (now). Please do not view this incident as an attack on your character: I am trying to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I simply believe that Ms Roelofs and her experiences are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. At the risk of violating WP:AGF, I assume good faith in the author and ask him/her respectfully to do the same.

Regarding the second objection, having the claims in the article backed up by sources, even rigorously as the author claims, is not enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia; the subject must also satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. The decision on whether this criterion is met is left to more experienced editors than myself; I have said all I wish to say in the nomination. - Choiwc (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of lasting notability -- NOT NEWS is the relevant policy DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) This is more complicated than I realised. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Hi there. I know it's unusual as the person who this page is about to reply, but I was notified this page was created about me and that very quickly after it, people have been trying to vandalise it and then a user made claims that aren't true and this user seems to covertly deminish my work as a whistleblower. I must say I am not surprised at all to find 'this situation' and I will clarify why in my next points. Please see this concern as a comment from the whistleblower this page is about.

I'm a long time Wiki contributor myself, and while I must say I appreciate Wiki users Solidhelium, Materialscientist, PPP, Tony1 GoingBatty, Dom Forde, Rodw, Celestina007 have put up and cleared up a very factual page with resources (and have kept an eye on vandalism) concerning my activism and work, the history of this page and subsequently the requested deletion, after mutiple Wiki users already checked it and didn't mark it for deletion, alarms me. I'd like to add a few things to this conversation to consider because what's going on might indicate something the Wiki community should be aware about and consider in this discussion.

First of all, anyone who reads some of the news sources mentioned on this page - as well as other media articles about me which aren't sourced here - will find out I've been a victim of a defamation campaign since 2017. I quote newspaper Algemeen Dagblad ^[1] - who published a reconstruction of my case which was also published by many other newspapers such as De Limburger, BN DeStem, De Gelderlander and more ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]: "Roelofs has been threatened on the internet by anonymous accounts since 2017. She is called "whore" and "liar", is said to use drugs, be psychotic and have staged everything with actors. They wish her suicide and the stake. The sister of the youtuber emails Roelofs: "Stop it, or I will ruin you."' There are hundreds social media pages online where anonymous accounts defame me using my real name or business name. There are people - very clearly - who rather want the public to find those pages with anonymous smears, than an actually well-sourced Wiki page (I must say I was quite surprised and impressed seeing how well sourced this page was and how also objective - it's refreshing to see after having seen so many unsourced anonymous pages smearing me as a result of speaking out against a public person with almost 2 million 'fans' at this point), and thus we need to be vigilant and question the deletion of pages about whistleblowers, because those who request deletion, might have an agenda.

Secondly, from the history, I can see the last few days 2 IP accounts tried vandalising this page already, and next user Choiwc added it for deletion, stating something rather interesting: "I cannot read Dutch or any other language in which the cited resources are written", so how objective are they being here? If they don't understand what's said in a talk show about me, don't understand the articles about me, why do they try to have a page deleted when they can't even understand the resources on the page which don't only mention my own criminal case, but cases of other rape victims I've brought attention to in the media? Is it because Wiki users actually made an effort to factually state verified information about me that Choiwc tries to have it deleted?

Furthermore, Choiwc states "Subject's participation in (...) Stichting Cassandra are either only supported by primary sources or not supported at all" and "Subject is only notable for her alleged assault, rape, and subsequent libel against her by a former colleague.", which isn't true. There are 3 news articles and a 'consultation' published on the Dutch government's website, about my participation in Stichting Cassandra. ^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] As I am the founder of a foundation currently active in 5 languages, it's strange user Choiwc states my 'involvement' in Stichting Cassandra is "only supported my primary sources or not supported at all". Why do they try to diminish the work I've been doing - even try to make it out like my involvement in the foundation I started is 'not supported at all' - while newspapers have written about it? And why do they try to make out this page is only about 1 case (my own), when as a whistleblower I have brought attention to multiple cases in The Netherlands, not just my own? ^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]. Why would this user state all these things that aren't true and undermine my work and paint a picture of someone only known for 1 case? It seems like an attempt to subtly defame me, which is worrisome given the evidence of the online defamation campaign concerning me.

Especially given the two other IP accounts who tried to vandalise the page before user Choiwc, it's concerning user Choiwc tries to have the page deleted, because I'm a whistleblower who has been quite critical of her own government to the point where I participated in a 1 year investigation into the treatment of victims, resulting in a reconstruction of my case being published in multiple newspapers and an overal investigation I'm mentioned in that has been brought up by Amnesty International ^[17].

I noticed the newest news article about my own case hasn't been added to this page, which should be important to mention too. It mentions the procedural violations of the Dutch court in my case - after I became a whistleblower - concerning the 'work colleague', and human rights violations and 'clerrical errors' by the Public Prosecution Service, and that my lawyer's next move it to present the case at the European Court of Human Rights. Given the potential violations of human rights of the Dutch government in the case of a whistleblower, I would myself say given the media attention for my own case and the attention I helped brought to other victims cases, there might be reasons for people to have this page deleted simply because of that.^[18]

I would also like to point out that Choiwc first ever Wiki edit concerned the page about 'The Little Prince'. The Little Prince is the book the 'work colleague' (the youtuber mentioned on this page about me), gave me when we starting working together, when I met him in person. He told me it was his favourite book. Now this might be a coincidence - that this user who tries to have this page deleted, first edit was also on this book 'The Little Prince' - but there's another thing I would like to put to everyone's attention: yesterday this user edited their Wiki page adding the text "New editor, who dis? :-)" while they clearly are no new user. Their first edit was on 02:38, 1 October 2014 - The Little Prince. Given I am working on a book about my experiences as a whistleblower and experience with online abuse, stalking and defamation, and because I am followed by filmmakers who are working a documentary about my work as a whisteblower, I will archive this page for historic purposes, given the beforementioned points as well as 'The Little Prince' first Wiki edit of Choiwc. It surely is interesting.. I have provided a picture of the book the 'work collegue' gave me. Since I live in The Netherlands, you can understand it's probably very difficult for me to find this book somewhere within 24 hours, in English also. If needed I can provide conversations between the 'work colleague' and I where we discuss the book.

I hope the Wiki community will look into my concerns and if it's decided to update the page with further resources and keep it, will immediately protect the page based on the points I've made... And I'm not saying that because this page is about me. I'm saying it as someone who has contributed and donated to Wikipedia and as someone who understands the importance of Wiki and specifically the work of whistleblowers. It's concerning when there are hundreds of social media pages where a whistleblower is smeared by anonymous accounts and multiple parties might have an interest in having a well-sourced pages about said whistleblower vandalised and marked for deletion. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Off-topic. This thread concerns whether the present article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Ms Roelofs baselessly accuses me of being a sock-puppet account controlled by her alleged former abuser. I have no knowledge of the abuser's identity or motives. Again, I ask everyone on this thread to remain civil, assume good faith, and refrain from hypothesising about anyone's character. If you wish, I am happy to call in an administrator or experienced editor who can weigh the situation carefully and assess my motives. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but I believe that my actions are in good faith and beneficial to Wikipedia. With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the incidents detailed in the article are unlikely to have lasting notability. IMHO it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Choiwc (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Red herring - a diversion tactic. You manipulatively tried to make yourself look like a new editor while you have been on Wiki for 6 years. Of course I will ask questions in a case like this and obviously you try to divert from this topic because it's clear you are not here arguing in good faith. You might know posh words and can make yourself look like you are contributing in good faith, but it's clear you are not and you are somehow invested in having this page deleted. You went out of your way to try to have this page deleted while a number of Wiki users contributed to it - and you make out as if all those users didn't fact check anything when they reviewed the page. You are insulting the users who put effort in creating this page, while at the same time admitting you are unable to fact check the page. You even are trying to rile up an army by adding the discussion on other pages, after you falsely stated things about me on this page and tried to diminish my work and attempted to paint me as a person known for only 1 thing. Diminishing my work is exactly what anonymous accounts are doing on pages outside Wiki (which has been published about by over 9 newspapers) - and you show a similar pattern. Worse, you don't even apologise for your behaviour and ignore when I bring up your questionable history and manipulation. Instead you falsely state I accuse you "of being a sock-puppet account" while I simply brought up your questionable history and the patterns I see and remark them without actually accusing you of anything. You know what normal people would do when they realise they are talking to a victim of a defamation campaign? They would be very careful in discussion, read the further resources, and be empathetic in communication and try to make clear to that victim they aren't handling in bad faith. That's not what you do. It's very clear you are biased and don't respect me as a human being at all and have a motive behind your writings about me. It's even more clear from how you respond to me compared to how you responded to Dom Forde who literally said about you "The fact that the user proposing this page be deleted cannot even read the sources quoted in the article tells me this is a spurious endeavour beyond my understanding." Did you get hostile towards them? No, you said: "I thank him/her for the reminder—that was an error on my part". But when I bring up concerns, you throw the red herring and attempt to frame me. That does not sound like someone who should participate in discussion on a page concerning a whistleblower who is the victim of a defamation campaign. Instead, that sounds exactly like someone who has been participating in the defamation campaign or someone who is invested in furthering that defamation campaign - even on Wikipedia! You use 'sockpuppet' account as if we are on Reddit (where most pages defaming me reside). This is Wikipedia. Everything you write will be backed up and you cannot delete it, so please, go ahead and write more, I'm watching, and everyone else is watching too. I am beyond interested how you are going to justify that you tried to make yourself look like a 'new editor' while you have been Wiki for 6 years and rarely participated in those 6 years - but for some reason having this page deleted, is your priority in 2020. Do you have a problem with pages about women by any chance - since you tried to diminish my (published) work and even attempted to make out I am not linked to the foundation I founded? Because in that case you might want to know about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women: "This project addresses the under-representation of content on Wikipedia about women (both real and fictional) and covering women's perspectives. Only 17% of Wikipedia biographies are about women. It also addresses women's works, such as the paintings they created, books they wrote, scientific discoveries they made or the organizations they created." Your behaviour - like user Dom Forde said - is a spurious endeavour indeed. I can't believe - as someone who contributed to Wikipedia for years after having just found out a bunch of good-faith Wiki users made this very well resourced page about me - that I'm finding myself now so subtly targeted in the community I love, by you Choiwc. I hope it will be called out because you are creating a hostile environment on Wikipedia and not only have you been disrespectful to me, wrote things about me that aren't correct and diminished my contribution to exposing social issues in society - you also diminished the contributions of the Wiki users who wrote, contributed and reviewed this page. Users who seem to actually know what they are talking about and were able to read the resources - unlike you. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 18:00, 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. JGHowes ^talk 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Roderick Walker[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRIME this information - not AFAIK verified in a court of law - would be better in the Georgia article? But it doesn't merit a standalone article IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Clayton_County,_Georgia#Crime_and_policing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails NEWSEVENT The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Short duration of coverage, and lack of lasting effects. Fails WP:EVENT. Edge3 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Persibas Banyumas season[edit]

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

Not covered by WP:NSEASONS and does not seem to pass WP:GNG so does not warrant a stand-alone article. Some of their matches get coverage (e.g. [34]) but I'm not seeing enough of a reason to suggest this passes GNG. Spiderone 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with GiantSnowman that it fails GNG/NSEASONS. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-magnified optic[edit]

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

Redundant description/copy of three unrelated devices/articles under a WP:DICDEF derived from multiple WP:OR observations of a term. No WP:SIGCOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, WP:SYNTH, and ungrammatical, too. If anything it must be "non-magnifying". Lembit Staan (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete and (possibly) redirect to optics per nom. I will probably always vote to delete articles such as this, under What Wikipedia is Not. Like many other semi-scientific terms, it is not even well defined ("a sighting system which uses windows or optical lenses, but which does not magnify"). Whatever needs to be said of non-magnified objects (which, since WP is not a dictionary, is very, very little) should be said in optics. I do not believe any of the information there needs to be saved or merged. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:34, 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 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 merge to Bryant G. Wood#Bible and Spade. czar 19:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Spade[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL for one, as this is not an academic journal (and so WP:NME would be more appropriate -- but it fails that too), but WP:GNG also. Doesn't seem to be noticed by anybody other than its small fanclub. !Keep comments from the first AfD some 12 years ago seem to be of the sort that the commentators were misled by throwaway flash-in-the-pan stories, a bit of WP:SENSATION, and a weird reference to inclusion in libraries which does not serve us to write an actual article on the subject. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have come to believe that we need articles on quacks and cranks, precisely because these are an easy way of establishing their quackery/crankness. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFRINGE means that this is sometimes appropriate, indeed, but what WP:FRIND sources do you have that we can use to write this article? It's been languishing since the last AfD with sources that were claimed usable now consigned to dumpster heaps, apparently. We've moved past the idea of Wikipedia being a compendium and towards a model where Wikipedia pays attention to those things which have been referenced by third parties. This "journal", such that it is, really hasn't been noticed. jps (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion on deletion of the article, but one option would be to merge into the Bryant Wood article, since he seems to be the driving force behind it.Achar Sva (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me. Seems like a reasonable search term, perhaps. jps (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article reads like an attack/vendetta piece. Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia, but regardless, I do not see the benefit of articles whose sole purpose is some weird form of social justice. --GorgeousJ (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you're reading the right article? This one is a stub that says barely anything. jps (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Selectively merge to Bryant G. Wood, where it is mentioned. Describing it there would adequately meet the purpose of documenting its quackery/crankness raised above. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Wood. It needs to be merged, not just redirected. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)`[reply]
Comment: as a step towards deletion, which seems to be the consensus, I've merged some material from this article into a new section of the article on Bryant G Wood.Achar Sva (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bryant G. Wood. The SMERGE seems to have already boldly happened (how's that for a tortured wikiphrase?) and there is no evidence that the journal is notable independently from the person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Wood. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, seems to have happened already, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 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 redirect to UCL Faculty of Life Sciences. Sandstein 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a division of a department of a faculty: "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, where it is mentioned in the list of departments. I'm not seeing enough notability for a standalone article, the only reference given is an internal newsletter and I've not been able to find any substantial, independent coverage. There is a fair amount of coverage of work that has come out of the department, but I can't find any sources discussing the department itself. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:21, 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. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood International School[edit]

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

The article only cites two primary sources and all I could find in a WP:BEFORE was basic things like name drops in school directory listings. There isn't even the usual trivial news articles about it from what I can tell and secondary schools are not inherently notable per the RfC. Plus, it's mainly written like an advertisement. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to lacking multiple in-depth independent reliable sources about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a detailed news article about a court case regarding the school in Mmegi [35]. There is also a detailed one-page entry about the school in this book. Also, GoogleNews search returns 54 hits. Most of them appears to be regarding various events taking place at the Mantlwaneng Theatre at Westwood School. Apparently the facility is world class and many national level performaces take place there. Passes WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source doesn't even discuss the school and the second is extremely trivial coverage. For instance, stuff like "they have computers." So, how does a source that doesn't have any details of the school pass WP:GNG or one that says they have computers pass WP:NORG and the various trivial coverage clauses? If they have a "world class" theatre (which sounds a tad sensationalist) and that's what all the news coverage is about, then there should be an article about the theatre. Not that Google News hits matter anyway though. How many of them are actually in-depth and about the actual school? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to see if some of the mentioned additional information might help, for it isn't even hitned at in the present article. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92 and other additional sources: [36] [37] [38] There are over 184 hits for the school on Mmegi.bw alone, partially because its theatre gets used for a variety of productions, including a presidential debate. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government websites don't usually show notability for AfD purposes, or really otherwise. Nor do articles about transient court cases that never went anywhere or dont have sustained coverage. Wikipedia isn't a news source. If the only thing the school is notable for is the theater, make an article about that then. Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the school was established and is supported the Department of State is notable in its own right, and we have links to support that fact - and can add links to material from 2017 still listing the school at the State Department's Office of Overseas Schools. On a separate note, I am not a fan of the author of the AfD having nearly halved the size of the article by removing 'unreferenced' material before listing it at AfD - I would much prefer letting the community judge the article as it was a month ago.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a guideline that says the notability standard is something being "established." On me removing 'unrefrenced' material, I don't appreciate you putting it qoutes like I was lying about it being unreferenced. More importantly though AfDs and notability are about sourcing, not what particular words are in an article at any given time. Also, I wasn't planning on doing the AfD at that point. I had planned to rewrite the article with sources until I couldn't find any,but could find any. So I decided to do the AfD instead. Which is my prerogative. Last I checked we don't leave unrefrenced material in articles indefinitely just so someone won't get sore about it being removed later. Just like we don't do it for copyvio, vandalism, or anything else that doesn't belong in articles. Making about it seems more like trying to deflect from the fact that this isn't actually notable more then anything else. Sorry, but secondary schools are not inharently notable. Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am firstly writing to apologize for the unintended slight of not explaining what I meant by the quotes. Allow me to start there. I would have much preferred to keep the unreferenced material there to give me, or others, a chance to hopefully find relevant sources - which we now don't have the opportunity to do, since the material is gone. So be it. It was not my intention to give any other impression, and for not making myself clear in the first place, I apologize.

The rest of your post isn't much I'd like to get into. In general, it simply seems to me that too often editors find it much easier to list for AfD than to spend some time to see what can be done to save articles. I am NOT specifically accusing you of this - I am making a general statement. Again in general - I have said so before and will say it again and again - I find GNG to be a shield far too easy to hide behind, and I find it to be overused in too many instances. As you say, you have the prerogative to do what you did - so do I in trying to save as much material I find valuable as I can. I hope we can meet in the middle on occasion - I expect to lose more than I win, but if I think I am doing the right thing, I'll be happy to put in the effort. I expect to lose this one, to be quite honest, but I can live with that and will carry on to the next one. Most of the time, I am here defending knowledge for knowledge's sake - and I may at times not have any guidelines or other leg to stand on, but will still fight the fight. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 02:49, 25 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. Sandstein 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Energy quality[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem to make any sense. For example the Odun ranking of information as the highest quality energy is dubious as information is more related to Entropy (information theory) than energy. And the Ohta ranking includes both the photon and electromagnetic, even though photons are a type of electromagnetic radiation. There is no info on how it would relate to Sustainable energy. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does appear to be a real topic covered in a number of academic papers and books in a range of topics, see [39]. It basically refers to how 'useful' various types of energy are and how the same amount of different types of energy have different economic and practical value. The article does badly need a {{technical}} cleanup tag though. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 'Introduction' section since it seemed to be completely unsourced WP:OR and fairly disconnected from the rest of the article, plus it's redundant to the lead. If anyone disagrees revert away. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick edit. But the definition at the top of the sciencedirect link you mention contradicts the first sentence of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's just imperfect and that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has 3 different definitions.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such confusion or lack of clarity is best addressed by copy-editing, not deletion. To help understand the topic and establish its bona-fide nature, see Energy quality, emergy, and transformity. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I had not heard of emergy before but the link would seem to be a good argument for merging into that article. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the articles content seems to be significant and sourced. It should be edited instead of being deleted. Eyebeller (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know none of the sources are available online so I am unable to easily check them. However the article is incomprehensible nonsense. Just ask anyone you know to read the lead paragraph. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The complaint seems to be that the article is "incomprehensible", without getting specific. The first sentence, as currently written, seems to be perfectly comprehensible. Standard English, and hover over the wikilinks if uncertain as to the meaning and a popup explains. So its not the first sentence. Then what? Currently, the first paragraph seems just fine... The next few sections seem OK, to me; I've never heard of Ohta, but the ability to extract energy is a standard topic in textbooks on thermodynamics. I recall one example from a textbook: during the industrialization of New England during the 18th century, you needed to build a dam on a creek to trap water to drive a waterwheel to run the mill. If a neighbor also built a dam nearby for their mill, this would lower the quality of energy available to you; this eventually lead to a downward spiral in the efficiency of any one given mill, even as the number of mills in the region increased. This in turn spurned the search for higher quality energy, e.g. from coal, converted to steam, converted to mechanical, which characterizes much of 19th century industrialization (electrical was not possible until the 20th century). I cannot cite any textbook that explains this; I think I read this in a thermo textbook, but I dunno. New England industrialization is heavily studied in economics, where quality of energy is a real consideration for industrialists. I could ad these paragraphs to the article but this is "common knowledge" to me, I can't cite anything for this. This AfD should be cross-posted in WP:Economics, if there is such a group. They would know more. But it seems, so would the ecologists. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to cross-post so I have done so. Although the article has been improved since I requested deletion I have added a couple of specific examples of incomprehensibility above. I don't know about New England and I had not heard the interesting waterwheel example before. It is a bit difficult to understand without a diagram but perhaps that was more to do a with new mill outflow being below the level of the existing mill? Or is it due to the stream not being completely dammed or the lack of big reservoir meaning that the water arrived at the lower mill at an inconvenient time and had to be spilled? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the photos in millpond and milldam (best photos in millrace) you will note that they are simply not that tall or big; creeks and very small rivers, with relatively little waterflow. If the total hydraulic head is only 2-3 feet (half a meter to a meter) and if a neighbor builds a downstream pond that floods into your outlets, there is no where for your water to flow. These were not high-efficiency affairs to begin with -- the first turbine isn't invented until 1820, and even a small turbine would require more than a meter of head to work, which is more than might be available. New England is mostly flat, kind-of hilly, there are no mountains. Think of it this way -- all machinery was hand-built using hand tools. Mostly out of wood. There were no power tools! There were no factories making the parts you needed! We're talking about the very first factories! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend toward keep, both based on the current article state and my memory of engineering school. --Izno (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The idea of energy quality mostly comes when discussing conservation of energy and heat. The energy is still there, but it isn't as useful, or as high quality as mechanical energy or electrical energy. I say KEEP, though that doesn't mean that the article doesn't need changing. I read through it fairly fast. Gah4 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As per above it is a notable concept.Woinfosd (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - it's not a famous topic, nor a good article, but it has been well-covered and is not terrible. I would like to work on it later.Bearian (talk) 22:29, 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 Convert to a disambiguation page. Sandstein 14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Energetics[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem to make any sense. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's just imperfect and that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I did not explain very well. I understand the meaning of the word "energetics" but it does not seem to deserve a Wikipedia article, merely a Wiktionary entry. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify to the various thermodynamics pages (e.g. Thermodynamics, Chemical thermodynamics etc), Bioenergetics and Energy flow (ecology) (as the area of study of ecological energetics). This is an old name for thermodynamics (e.g. Rankine's first book on thermodynamics was titled Outlines of the Science of Energetics), but it is still used in some introductory material today (e.g. A-Level chemistry still refers to the topic as energetics). The article starts with a history section that is basically a duplicate of the main Thermodynamics article (i.e. the work of Rankine and Boltzmann) Then suddenly veers off to discuss Howard T. Odum and his fringe views on the need for extra laws of thermodynamics which never gained mainstream acceptance. Can't really see enough for a standalone article here, since half the content is duplicating the history of thermodynamics and the other half is fringe content on the need for extra laws. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth do you mean by “dabify”? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Foxnpichu: Convert to a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Glossary#D. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, okay. That makes more sense. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to my comment I've realised it isn't the clearest thing in the world, so I thought I'd expand and unmuddle my thoughts a bit.

Energetics just means "The study of the properties, flow and transformation of energy". This is such a broad topic that the article has gotten confusing trying to cover multiple topics with not much connection. As the article states it covers everything from the Quantum level to the Cosmos.

As I mentioned this topic is the original name for thermodynamics, and it's still used to some extent in that manner, especially in chemistry and materials science (You'll find a lot of papers on the energetics of crystal structures, for example).

This word is used in biology to refer to the flow of energy through organisms and ecosystems, under the names Bioenergetics and ecological energetics.

There are a load of other topics that are potentially related (Industrial ecology? Thermoeconomics?) and I think trying to cover them all in one article is always going to be a disaster. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said Speedy Keep, but following your reply to Andrew's comment, I'm going to say Transwiki to Wikitionary. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above useful comments I have changed my mind and now think Dabify would be best. Although also a very short definition could be put in Wiktionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify to the various thermodynamics pages per IP editor above. Ambiguous term, too ambiguous to work as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but is a reasonable dab page. // Timothy :: talk 05:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a somewhat obscure term. The page needs a lot of work. Perhaps a dabification will work. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Academy Rwanda[edit]

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

The school was around for a relatively short period. The article was created and has mainly been edited by a COI, it doesn't cite any references, and I was unable to find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would pass WP:GNG, WP:NORG, or really anything else. There's one name drop of it in the reference section of a journal article, but is all I could find. I was unable to access the 4 page thing it seems to be referencing to determine if it passes the notability guidelines or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as per nomination. Humansdorpie (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have to stop having articles sourced only to an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Catalan article, there are sources in multiple languages: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. The article as it stands is terrible, but it may still be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rwanda: Ishuri Hope Academy ry'abanye Turukiya ryugawe- If the BBC consider writng about it- thats all we need for a keep. Stub class and needing a a lot of work. ClemRutter (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, articles about thing like the school closing and a science fair are clearly a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NORG...Right...Right..The triviality of the subjects aside, WP:GNG requires that there be "'Significant coverage' that addresses the topic 'directly and in detail'" and the two articles about them wining a science fair doesn't even discuss the school, in detail or otherwise. Except to name drop it. But hey, one of them is by the BBC, not in English, and apparently that's all that matters.

People should really review sources better, because I'm getting really sick of having to post messages like this one, just because people like SportingFlyer think name drops are adequate for notability. Weirdly, he doesn't seem to use the same standards when it comes to sourcing in AfDs for articles that aren't about schools for some reason. So, I get the feeling it's more about bad faithed bias and an intentional attempt to derail AfDs related to schools in Africa, by posting trivial sources in most of them, more then anything else. I'm sure he knows articles that just name drop don't pass WP:GNG. Since apparently he's an expert at this and knows the correct thing to do all the time, or at least that's how he acts. Although, I guess he does have plausible deniability in this case. Since he didn't vote. Although, I really do have to wonder why he posted sources he clearly knew didn't pass notability guidelines in the first place then. Except to give people like ClemRutter, who think an article in the BBC is an automatic notability pass no matter what and sure won't review the other sources, an excuse to vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 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. Sandstein 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poly and Bark[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notable events, article reads like an advertisement. 1292simon (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom that this fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant coverage. Edge3 (talk) 16:47, 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 keep. No support for deletion. Options to rename, change, or otherwise further develop are all matters to be addressed through ordinary editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of women elected to Canadian Parliament[edit]

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

Unnecessary and incomplete list. The core problem with this is that Category:Lists of female political office-holders in Canada already contains standalone lists of women in each individual session of Parliament, so it's not clear that the existing lists actually need to be paired with a comprehensive one-stop list of all the same women who are already in the other lists. In addition, it bears note that even though this list was first created in 2019, it's failed to add any woman who was elected to parliament since 2011: none of the freshwomen from 2015 or 2019, no woman who won any by-election since 2011. No Marci Ien, no Ya'ara Saks, no Jody Wilson-Raybould, no Jane Philpott, no Chrystia Freeland. And even worse, it isn't even fully complete for 2011, with no Elizabeth May or Michelle Rempel Garner or Nycole Turmel, either: even for 2011, it's missing every single woman whose name comes after Anne-Marie Day in alphabetical order. But since the more specific lists already exist, it's not clear that there would be any point in investing the time to actually fix this one. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge the other lists into this one. Women in the 43rd Canadian Parliament being missing from the overall list is not a reason to delete the overall list, rather a reason to merge the 43rd into this. Women in the 15th Canadian Parliament is stupid. Each of the individual lists duplicates the main list. I would compare to Women in the United States House of Representatives: Having a single consolidated list of women who served in one or multiple congresses/parliaments? Great idea! Having lots of individual pages that duplicate and split out the information? Poor idea! Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the main list only has 63 view in the last month, explained by the fact not a single article links to it, so no wonder it's out of date! I added it to Template:Women in Canadian politics, and perhaps some Canadian politics editors will be interested in filling it out! Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't necessarily want the other lists merged out of existence, and that's absolutely not happening absent a full batched merger discussion that sees every one of those pages directly tagged so that all interested parties are properly informed of the discussion and able to participate in it — even if merging them all into one list is warranted, which is not inherently obvious, piloting it under the radar via an AFD discussion on a little-viewed duplicate is not the way to get that done. So those pages are not going anywhere absent a proper merge discussion through the proper merge discussion channels. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of pioneering women members of the Parliament of Canada and trim accordingly? Being a female MP is not that big a deal anymore. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what purpose does this list actually serve so long as the other, narrower lists already exist? Secondly, where would you propose to apply a "pioneering" cutoff, so that women before that cutoff got listed while women after the cutoff didn't, without violating our rules against arbitrary cutoffs? And thirdly, while a woman being elected as an MP isn't as unusual anymore as it used to be, women are 50 per cent the population, but still only about 25 per cent of current elected officials and maybe 10 per cent of the historical totals at best. And precisely because women in politics are still a relatively recent phenomenon, they are actually the subject of academic study about the intersection of gender with the job of politics. So no, until such time as 50 per cent of all MPs have been women, so that the proportion of women MPs actually matches the proportion of women constituents, it still matters. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women in Canadian politics for now, then create a WP:List of lists for each list of "Women in the xxth Canadian Parliament". At 233 000kb, it is already exceeding the WP:SIZERULE guideline and adding the information from the 2011, 2015 and 2019 elections will make it worse. Redirecting the page to Women in Canadian politics allows readers to access this information as linked at the top of "Women as federal representatives." After the redirect, I think we should create a list of lists for women in each Parliamentary session ( as I think this topic fulfils the first bullet point in List of lists's purpose. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False. SIZERULE applies to readable prose length, not to total page size, which here is almost entirely table and text formatting. I just removed 27,000b just by removing the superfluous "rowspan=1" on every row, and a further 76,000 by removing very long dead URLs! We need articles for individual parliaments no more than we need List of women in the 116th United States Congress: the information is already in the main overall list. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the article and saw the amazing work Reywas92 did to remove deadlinks and unnecessary formatting. I know SIZERULE applies to prose length, but a list like this is going to use lots of formatting and I believe it will be very long when the MPs from 2011-2019 are added.

It's mentioned above that We need articles for individual parliaments no more than we need List of women in the 116th United States Congress. This caused me to look at other articles and talk page discussions on this topic around Wikipedia. For the US Congress, there is no List of Women in the United States Congress and List of Women in the United States House of Representatives redirects to "Women in the United States House of Representatives" (I could not find a Senate equivalent). There was a discussion in US House of Reps talk page which ended with the list remaining in the article but divided into time periods. There is also a List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and there has not been a discussion there to fork the list. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an acceptable AfD argument, but I think it is important to find out if there is consensus on this topic elsewhere (and it doesn't seem that way).

What I keep thinking about is this quote from WP:ARTICLESIZE: Readability is a key criterion. I think the UK list is too long and difficult to read, and I fear that the Canadian list will be similarily long, which is why I support creating the list of lists. I totally understand others who disagree with me because it's not supported by the ARTICLESIZE kb limitations, but I think lists end up being physically bigger than article prose and should WP:SPINOUT at lower kb lengths. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new members from the 42nd and 43rd Parliaments to the list. It's not completely done or perfect, but this should be the full length, and I also split it into a few sectioned tables like the US list – it's now at 150kb, some stuff still to be added, but some formatting can still be removed. It still shorter than the UK House of Commons list, since that body is also literally twice as large as the Canadian House of Commons. The other issue is Women in the 40th Canadian Parliament, is just a subset of List of House members of the 40th Parliament of Canada, etc.: there's no benfit to duplicating them out for each session. The US Senate equivalent is Women in the United States Senate (a smaller body of course). What I often find unreadable is a list being chopped into ~30 separate articles, which are duplicative and provide no information about when they first took or finally left office. A consolidated list is about the women who served as a whole historically than the membership of a particular session. Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does wikipedia need an overarching article on this with various sections that include hatnotes to specific list articles that provide more details? i reckon yes. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:CLN specificially "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive." and Advantages of a list. This list will be a general list of the individuals and it will have a WP:LISTOFLISTS for each paraliment. // Timothy :: talk 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProfessional[edit]

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

No sustained coverage, nothing much since 2007. Never appears to have taken off. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems to have gotten a decent amount of reputable coverage back when it was a thing, and vaporware is allowed to have articles. The article will need a lot of work though. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 23:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:35, 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. Sandstein 14:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Health[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable company. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NY Times [[45]] just covered the company, stating that it had a $3.7 Billion valuation when it went public. There's also some other coverage in CNBC [[46]], and the current sourcing is also decent. It sounds like it's not a very sexy business, but it's big. Just needs to be cleaned up a bit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is an announcement and fails on WP:CORPDEPTH. The 2nd ref fails WP:ORGIND. Of the 11 references in the article, 9 of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH as being straight up announcements, the other is Medium which fails WP:SPIP, the last one seems to be a genuine reference. However, a single reference is insufficient to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The NYT reference quoted above is based on a company announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address both comments above, the NY Times' coverage is not just based on a company announcement. If you read the article, you'd see that the coverage includes a link to a March 2019 Wall Street Journal article when the company announced it was laying off 25% of its staff. [[47]]. That negative news wasn't in the company announcement, suggesting that it's not so easy to write the Times' coverage off. That makes three significant media entities I found covering a $3.9 billion company, in addition to what's there now. And you can also find additional coverage including in Bloomberg [[48]] about Clover's recently formed partnership with Walmart, the retailer's s first foray into the world of Medicare Advantage. And BTW, that Bloomberg piece says Clover has 57,000 members in seven states. $3.7 billion, 57,000 members - I don't see how this is a delete - it just needs to be cleaned up. And scope_creep - how did you sign your comment above without including a date? Is that a glitch? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, looks like it. scope_creep^Talk 00:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is the announcement on which the NYT article was written regarding the acquisition. The link to the WSJ article in relation to the layoffs is based on "an email to employees" which was seen by WSJ, so a PRIMARY source. Still fails for having no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. The CNBC article you linked to is also based on an announcement and quotes provided by the company which includes the company announcement in full at the end of the article. The article also refers to the same WSJ article as the NYT, the one based on the internal email. So the CNBC reference also fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as the NYT article. Finally, the Bloomberg article is also based on a company announcement - here's a link. Here are some other "articles" on the same topic which also fail ORGIND. Finally, yes, it is odd that a $3.7 billion enterprise doesn't appear to be covered (beyond a mention) in any analyst reports (normally good references and a "gimme" for notability) or that there doesn't appear to be any references that don't rely on what the company tells them. We need references that contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Response I think the coverage is good, and it supports notability. Most reporting starts as company announcements - the Times et al don’t have enough people to lurk at a nearby restaurant and listen for scoops for every business. PR starts the process. I don’t like to use analyst reports as my sources since most of them solicit self-reported info and then try to sell back the reports. I’ve been pitched by analysts and have seen this firsthand. Even so, I’m not sure what analyst coverage there is with the decidedly unsexy field of Medicare Advantage. The sources I identified are pure and unquestioned journalism. I don’t think you’re saying that the info in the coverage is unverified and false. It’s fairly uncontroversial and just needs an overhaul to excise any COI contributions. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Tim. Just for clarification, you are correct, I am not making any comment on the veracity of the information provided in the coverage. I am merely applying the WP:NCORP guidelines, nothing more. Also as per those same guidelines, analyst reports are accepted as good references which is why I went looking for them. The NCORP guidelines are were tightened up considerably to clarify the types of acceptable references for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't support coverage. Lets examine the references.

This Health Tech Company Just Raised $160 Million] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
How this startup is trying to upend health insurance Dependent source. Fails WP:ORGIND.
The first investors in Uber just broke from tradition to make their largest investment ever Reads like a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS.
Clover Health, A Data-Driven Health Insurance Startup, Raises $100M Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

* Data-Driven Health Insurance Provider Clover Health Raises Another $35M Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

* This Health Tech Company Just Raised $160 Million Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

* San Francisco health insurance startup nabs $160 million in Series C funding Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

All the references are the same and indicative of an private company starting up. The article completely fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGIND. It is typical run-of-the-mill branding and PR news. Non-notable. The other references are same. scope_creep^Talk 22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put a lot of time into this argument but I just don’t see how any closer will delete an article about a $3.9 billion company that’s covered in the New York Times. I bet if the article wasn’t flagged we’d get more community participation in this AfD. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single reference and its an announcement which is explicitly against WP:NCORP policy. scope_creep^Talk 09:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actually Tim you don't get points from trying to set boundaries on how the closer will see this. Relist to get more eyes on the soirce analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not really sure what is worth keeping about this. The sources are lackluster company announcement type stuff, the article is written like an advert, and outside of that they seem to be an otherwise mostly run of the mill health care company. So, I see nothing here that passes either WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, or makes them notable by any other standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody else seemed to want to do it, so I cleaned up the article and added some more info from the sources. It reads better now and is less promotional. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much in the way of a copyedit for an attempt at WP:HEY when little of the article has been changed, and still reads like a brochure, indistinguishable from the company website. The following reference was added:

* Walmart and Clover Health team up to offer Medicare Advantage plans Fails WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional sources added including another Fast Company article, and Bloomberg. It doesn't appear that WP:BEFORE was done. I also reread the Medium source that was criticized - it's very critical - I'm sure the company doesn't want that there. Looks very balanced now with multiple good independent sources. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two references that Tim has added are:

* What to know about Chamath Palihapitiya taking Clover Health public in a surprise merger It is essentially funding news, monies raised in two small paragraphs mentioned in relation to another outfit. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly.

* Medium is a self-published blogging site, used to generate affiliates by building quality links and improving your SEO score for your own site It explicitly fails WP:SPIP. Critical or or not, it is self-generated publishing.

* Clover Health In Talks to Go Public Via Social Capital III The deal values Clover at $3.7 billion.... the companies said. Another block of churnalistic news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at it from a purely "encyclopedic content" perspective, all the article says in four pargraphs is that the raised some money and provides cheap insurance. Which is extremely run of the mill and promotional. 14 sources just for that is ridiculous. 5 of them is just cited for how they save money for their patients. Which shouldn't be included in any article about a company anyway. Period. So, this is still a sketch, extremely run of the mill, and totally deletable article. The 14 sources don't change that. Adamant1 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to this article than that summary. I also disagree about numerous sources not demonstrating notability. Both depth and breadth of coverage demonstrate notability. It's a lot harder to convince people that something isn't notable when multiple major media outlets cover the company. I just added even more coverage from the Wall Street Journal and CNBC. Readers can now read additional info about Clover's multi-billion dollar valuation, when they first hit unicorn status, how they went public via a SPAC, that they partnered with Walmart with that retailer's first foray into medical insurance, the challenges they faced trying to disrupt the insurance market, and how they had to pivot to replace some employees with people who had insurance and healthcare expertise. There are numerous other sources, but I don't want to ref stuff and bloat the article just to close this AfD. This should be enough. If it's not, dear closer, ping me and I'll add more info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: if it's a lot harder to convince people that something isn't notable when multiple major media outlets cover the company, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that it's notable when "multiple major media outlets have covered it"? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is basically an advertisement for a 3 Star Medicare plan. Plus, at least one of their executives have already had their Wikipedia articles deleted for being self-promotional (was basically their CV). Darth Xanax (talk) 03:17, 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. The "delete" side explains why in their view the proposed sources are inadequate, whereas the "keep" side, with a few exceptions, does not discuss the sources. Sandstein 14:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Five (comics)[edit]

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

No real world notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-developed and well-sourced article with notability evident in a simple google search of the topic. Elms^super 02:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsure how anyone could call this well-sourced. The non-primary sources range from only mentioning them in relation to the story or just a general coverage of the storyline with near zero commentary on the grouping. That is not significant coverage, and it does not at all meet the standards of WP:WAF, which is the only way not to fail WP:NOTPLOT. All the characters currently have their own articles, so this should at best be a redirect to the first storyline in which they appeared as this particular group. TTN (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, or merge to Dawn of X per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient coverage, per WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 22:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Can you link that coverage here? I see nothing in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No keep voter has explained how this meets WP:NFICT/GNG. It's pure WP:FANCRUFT - plot summary and list of appearances. There is no reception, no discussion of impact or significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 4 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) 06:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the article is not as well-developed as it should be, but the team has been discussed quite a bit in the comics press. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you back up this assertion with sources? In-depth, not mention-in-passing googlehits. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more development. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus requested, how is it significant? Well, for starters this is BIG within X-men community. As big as Phoenix force or M-day decimation level big. It changed the entire concept about mutants. Firstly they (mutants) have officially escaped death, which signifies the evolution theme that runs with their kind. Secondly, these five mutants for this reason are extremely important, must be protected at all costs no matter what, to the point they cannot be deployed on any missions. They still work as a team that will feature in many X-men titles going forward and will have their story arcs as well of others be affected by it. So we will need a page dedicated to this team entirely. The five have nothing to do with Krakoa as they can still function as a unit outside Krakoa. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 20:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a description of their subjective importance, but what matters is an objective measure of notability from sources detailing the topic from a real world perspective as to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT/WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As TTN noted, being big within the X-men fandom is not sufficient. Well, it might be sufficient IF there are sources that say this. If this is just your own view, I am afraid this is not enough. Being important in a foo-verse or within foo-fandom (with no sources to collaborate such claim of importance) is not enough per cited policies like NFICTION and GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article that fails GNG, per TTN. All keep votes so far have been WP:SOURCESEXIST. Where are the reliable sources? So far, nobody has brought them up._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve since other editors have brought up sources, and because the nominator has failed to produce an actual articulate argument as to why the article fails GNG as asserted. No prejudice towards a second AfD if the article does not see any major improvements made by other editors, with time of the essence. Haleth (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A few sources I have found: Polygon, Example of commentary on resurrection protocol, another source connecting X-Factor to the Five. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, per WP:NEXIST. Haleth (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The few non-primary sources that are being used in the article are entirely just plot summaries, and do not provide any actual commentary or explanation of notability. The various Keep votes above (not counting the ones that are nothing more than WP:ITSNOTABLE statements that should be discounted) just state that the article needs development and that there are enough sources, but have failed to actually provide what these sources are that would allow this article to be developed beyond simple WP:PLOT. A Redirect to Dawn of X, which was mentioned somewhere above, could also be feasible, but there has been no demonstration in this AFD that this fictional group is notable enough for a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Heleth's sources. The keep votes are very weak. Assertion carries little weight so, if you see sources, you need to cite them and discuss how they meet GNG to get full weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources seem to be plot summaries. Nothing talks about the comic directly or in-depth though. So, there isn't anything that would make this pass the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reviewing the sources there's nothing to cover that isn't just a plot recap, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. As something unsourced or primary sourced it also fails the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage in third party sources. All sources look to be trivial mentions and/or plot summaries, so this doesn't pass WP:PLOT or WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FICTION, sources are mainly primary, not secondary WP:IS WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV. The rest are either promotional or mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would establish notability. Article is WP:OR / WP:SNYTH, nothing properly sourced for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 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 redirect to Daddy Freddy. Sandstein 14:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cater Fe She[edit]

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

An article about an album, which is little more than a track listing and has been unsourced since creation in 2007. A WP:BEFORE search turned up precisely one item which contained more information than the article - a non--WP:RS blog. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daddy Freddy. I also could not find enough coverage to support this album having a separate article, but it could be a viable search term and since a redirect target exists, I think this is preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(nom) Redirect per Aoba47 (I should have suggested that myself). Plausible search term, enables population of categories. Narky Blert (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical guests of Planetary Radio[edit]

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

Totally trivial list of guests on a radio show. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All trivia and poorly sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Historical? Were Copernicus and Galileo interviewed? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. They don't seem to have been able to persuade Ptolemy to appear on their show either. Oh, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as already mentioned; plus - importantly - WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to apparently going against every guideline related to lists. Plus, it's an extremely trivial list and badly sourced to boot. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planetary Radio: Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 keep. Sandstein 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WFHA-LP[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRADIO since is meets none of these criteria: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming". Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I am half tempted to close this myself as a Keep, but I won't. I will, however, knock these down one by one.

The station covers a LARGE chunk of Melbourne, Florida. Melbourne has a population of approximately 83,000. The article on the station says they serve about 44,000 people, so that jives. So, one down, "a large audience".

Per FCCData.org, which takes their information directly from the FCC themselves, WFHA is not currently silent and the station's license was renewed 2012 and 2020. So, that's two down, "established broadcast history".

Now on the third, it's a little tricky. Admittedly, they don't have the world's greatest web presence, but what they do have is affiliations with programs that air on their station. What I can say is they are an affiliate of PRX or Public Radio Exchange, they carry the Mayo Clinic Radio program (it's Florida, old people like health information), The Street Corner Radio Show (oldies and doo-wop music, again, it's Florida), and Planetary Radio (because space is freakin' cool). Now, admittedly, not great...but here's an area realtor promoting the community that owns the station (an HOA owns WFHA) and says right in the text "playing smooth jazz and oldies, local news and interviews". So, while the station's web presence leaves something to be desired, I think this is confirmation of the third point, "being the originator of some programming".

So, article meets NMEDIA (or as Geschichte coded it NRADIO, same thing), meets GNG, needs a couple more sources (but what article doesn't?), but I think I've giving you all enough to work with here. This AfD should be closed immediately as a Speedy Keep and Geschichte smacked with a TROUT for wasting my time and the community's. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:07 on November 15, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

44 000 potential listeners says nothing about an actuall large audience. 16 years is not a significant history. I couldn't agree less with any of your notions. Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Geschichte: This is exactly why we, as individual editors, don't pick and choose which articles are notable, that's for the community to decide. They decided that NMEDIA are the rules that we follow when it comes to radio station articles. The opinion of individual editors is meaningless. The opinion of the community is what matters.

That said, have you seen 44,000 people in a room? That's a "large" amount of people. Most LPFMs don't subscribe to Nielsen or Eastlan Ratings, too expensive. So, unfortunately, we can't find out what their actual ratings are. But we can say with a safe bet of some certainty that they have listeners, otherwise they wouldn't still be on the air. LPFMs are banned from airing commercials like your larger commercial stations. So, they have to find underwriters. If they can't, they don't have anyone to pay the bills. So, clearly, someone is listening if, as you pointed out, after 16 years, they are still on the air. I am glad that you brought up their 16 year history. LPFM Radio Stations were approved in 2000, with the first stations launching 2004 and 2005. This is significant, because some of these stations are no longer on the air, due to the "Great Recession" and economic downturn in the late 2000s and 2010s and the Coronavirus Pandemic, which has done about a dozen of them in, AM stations too. So, for a station to make it through ALL that, plus hurricanes (it is Florida), shows the have a following and an audience.

Finally, a "notion" is "a conception of or belief about something". That's not what anything I said was. It was an "explanation" of facts with sources. An "explanation" is "a statement or account that makes something clear" and sources are the backbone of everything we do here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40 on November 15, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Keep - while I don't agree it should be speedied, I do agree with Neutralhomer's arguments for keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutralhomer. Meets WP:NRADIO. An examination of the station's website through the Internet Archive does verify that the station has been the originator of some programming.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Neutralhomer. Article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Sandstein 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Canepa[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. All relevant results mentioning Canepa simply quote him in relation to something IBM has done, never actually covering the man himself beyond mentioning his position at the company. The article also has an extremely promotional tone and makes the blatantly false statement that Canepa has won three Emmy Awards; IBM, not Canepa, were the recipients of these. – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannis Koskiniatis[edit]

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

This footballer only played on the Greek third tier, well below professional level of play. So the article really only exists because of his tragic demise, which blatantly fails WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination is flawed as the Greek third-tier (Gamma Ethniki) was fully-professional between 1983 and 2013, as stated at WP:FPL. Therefore with 61 appearances in the league he meets WP:NFOOTBALL easily. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite comfortable NFOOTY pass Spiderone 14:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand why User:Geschichte, after acting in good faith, and having realised they made an error about the professionablity of this league, hasn't withdrawn the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 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. Sandstein 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lash Out[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. So yeah, this was a band that released something, but on an underground level, garnering too little WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not found any reliable sources. There is no entry on the Norwegian Wikipedia either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:17, 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) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Janet Bayliss[edit]

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

There's quite a weird history involving the editor of this article and the other one I'm nominating for deletion, involving single-purpose accounts with a highly promotional bent, suspected copyright violation, a request for undeletion by Artcadet, and block evasion ... but be that as it may, I can't find any evidence that these artists have ever had their work recognised in national art galleries, let alone important state ones, so they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. The creator of these articles was in good standing when they wrote them, so they can't be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G5, and this deletion process has the most teeth, so here I am. Graham87 07:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following page was created by the same user and has many of the same problems, so I'm nominating it here:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of notability of the subject of this AfD nor of May O'Neill, the secondary AfD nomination here. Their works are not held in AustralianState galleries or the National Gallery of Australia. Nor can I find evidence of prizes they have won and reviews of their exhibitions. Also, the article's creator has admitted they have been blocked, recently created a second account and sought undeletion of another bio via User talk:MurielMary#Undeletion of Mary M. Wigg. Oronsay (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page does feel like a LinkedIn profile. I could not find a SINGLE article via a ProQuest news database search of Australian and New Zealand sources. And only this single entry on TROVE. Fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything even remotely constituting sigcov for Bayliss, nor can I find anything for May O'Neill. If someone can find sources, more than happy to change my vote. But my search has yielded nothing. Samsmachado (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Inclusion in the collection of a historic house somewhere (that is not notable enough for its own article) is not good enough for WP:ARTIST #4d, winning your town's local watercolor competition is not good enough for 4c, and nothing else looks even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 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. Sandstein 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padmakar Patil[edit]

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

Non-Notable politician! Being a Zilla Parishad Chairman doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sliekid (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to records of the subject's unsuccessful election campaign and inclusion of his name in a batch of appointments but containing unreferenced biographical details. The candidacy and party roles fail WP:POLITICIAN and my searches are not finding other grounds for notability. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you to the distinguished editors for pointing out their concerns with the article. Regardless of the outcome if the page is kept or deleted, I respect the high standards maintained at Wikipedia. With all due respect, my argument to keep the article is that the person in reference is a noteworthy politician and has served on state boards of the Karnataka state government in India. Please let me know if I can add any more references to support the case. Thanks! Sandeep Gadila (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Sandeep_Gadila[reply]
Delete: None of the positions he held make him meet WP:NPOL and I failed to find any significant secondary coverage about him (not even local, although I only searched in Latin script). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet NPOL and I can't see them getting through on GNG either Spiderone 11:16, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death... Is Just the Beginning V[edit]

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

A music video compilation DVD that does not appear to have any notability. The only source being used in the article is the Discogs tracklist. Searching for additional sources turns up other, similar database-style entries, but no actual coverage or reviews in reliable sources that I can find. Without reliable sources, it fails both the WP:GNG as well as WP:NALBUM. Rorshacma (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a run-of-the-mill promo DVD with no coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in total agreement with the nominator and previous voter. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Even though notable artists played on this album and Nuclear Blast is of course a notable label, I couldn't find any RS. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:45, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Technology[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Press releases, blogs, and purely routine coverage of acquisitions do not contribute to notability. This article was previously proposed for deletion in 2011, but Ajvsell, the page creator, removed the tag, commenting I believe that the issuing of a patent for the technology ... makes it notable. This stance is not backed by any policy or guideline; significant coverage in reliable sources is what matters. – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the current sourcing is not enough. There is only one independent source, and that source is rather superficial and routine-ish (technically, WP:ROUTINE is about events, but the only current claim to notability is inherited from this one event, the acquisition; regardless, I don't think it contributes much to significant coverage, due to its superficiality). PJvanMill)talk( 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the guideline shortcut cited, the Computerworld coverage does meet the definition of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" specified in WP:CORPDEPTH, in other words trivial. The article also looks like a press release with a byline. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORP failure per comments above with a complete lack of non-trivial RS coverage, either cited by the article or found in independent searching. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Entirely generic product with little encyclopedic knowledge, just standard notices. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Nair[edit]

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

BLP without independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established by two-times winning in 2003 and 2015 the James D. MacConnell Award — the highest award conferred by the Association for Learning Environments, A4LE (they only award one school project per year); the source (A4LE's web site) confirming these two awards is (per WP:INDEPENDENT) an independent, albeit a primary source. Also, the article subject seems to be an often-cited authority on school design: his 2009 book The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools is cited 372 times, his 2014 book Blueprint for Tomorrow: Redesigning Schools for Student-Centered Learning is cited 75 times. Yamfri (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting he isnt notable, but the article fails the policy on living people. Rathfelder (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few independent references to the article. Does this alleviate your original concern? Yamfri (talk) 16:59, 2 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) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:54, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aashritha[edit]

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

Out of the sources listed in the article, there is only one that covers the subject in detail [49]. I could not find any articles that were about the subject herself. YouTube, Behindwoods, and FilmiBeat are not reliable sources. Much of this article is original research. Additionally, this actress is not notable because in the coverage related to her films, she is not referred to as much. Also note that her role in Orange Mittai is minimal and she is part of a subplot [50]. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two notable films is a good indication towards SNG. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:48, 4 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) 06:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:54, 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 keep. The keep !votes have stronger rationales, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE arguments don't address the sources/arguments towards keeping Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Ramadan[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have an article. Jammu58 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jammu58 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jammu58 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her work Leaves of Narcissus, 22 editions of which are held by 419 WorldCat member libraries worldwide^[19], is a subject of full research article, Writing and Being: A Reading of Somaya Ramadan's Leaves of Narcissus by Muhammad Birairi . This is also a subject of a Master of Arts thesis, Ramadan's Leaves through Dali's mirror of Narcissus at the Lebanese American University. This indicates notability. I don't know how can she be non-notable despite all this? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'". Retrieved 24 October 2020.
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Aangifte tegen YouTuber leidt aanvankelijk tot niets: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".
^ "Zelden rechtszaak na verkrachting".
^ "Reactie Stichting Cassandra op de consultatie Wet seksuele misdrijven".
^ "Een écht internationale Vrouwendag-mars".
^ "'Mask for Justice' op het Vrijthof in Maastricht".
^ "Her death made headlines. We should learn from her life, instead". Retrieved 24 October 2020.
^ "OM: 'Man (23) uit Ochten verkrachtte drie vriendinnen'". Retrieved 24 October 2020.
^ "Verkrachtingszaken komen zelden voor de rechter".
^ "Overheid, steun de zedenslachtoffers beter". Retrieved 24 October 2020.
^ "Voorstel Wet seksuele misdrijven" (PDF).
^ "'Onmenselijk behandeld door gerechtshof'".
^ https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no96036376/

Delete Not notable. --Illuminator123 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable author, Fails Wikipedia:NAUTHOR--Stanford113 (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Aafī.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:04, 6 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) 06:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per The Aafī's comments. It passes WP:NAUTHOR and her work is popular. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}
Keep The sources in the article indicate that her work has been the subject of independent critical and scholarly review. She has also won a major literary prize. There are other references to her in news pieces, not cited in the article, because she is one of a very few public figures in Egypt who speaks about the Baha’i faith, which has faced suppression in the country. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Arabic native speaker I search in google (In Arabic), and I find she won Naguib Mahfouz Medal for Literature 2001 (source) and it's a high and very important and famous literary award in Arab world, and I think this is enough for notability --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Antl[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has represented Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify him for WP:NRU), no sources indicate he qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falling short of GNG and NRU; just passing mentions in match reports Spiderone 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator, is this article eligible for soft deletion if required? There are no previous AfD's, PRODs or redirects as far as I'm aware. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:18, 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 redirect to Ill Na Na 2: The Fever. Sandstein 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Need a Man (Foxy Brown song)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NSONG requirements. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support this song having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ill Na Na 2: The Fever. The single seems to have been released, but it achieved no media notice or significant sales while trying to promote an album that was never released. Now the song is only visible in the typical streaming and lyrics sites. But since it was a retail item it is a possible search term, so redirect to its so-called "album" as is usual policy. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 00:52, 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 Procedural Keep. Clear consensus that this bundling was inappropriate. There is little in the way of discussion of notability per WP:LISTN of the notability of any particular list, understandable though in this discussion. This close doesn't presume any particular list is shown to be notable as a result of this discussion and should not preclude individual renomination if there are genuine concerns about notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football players who died during their careers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American football players who died during their career (2014, before title renamed)

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

Per the Afd verdict on List of Gaelic footballers who died during their careers, dying for any reason whatsoever before retirement is not listworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

In some cases, there are notable overlapping lists, e.g. List of association footballers who died while playing.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is even broader (during and after career) and WP:OR:

Speedy Keep Gaelic football is a comparatively obscure sport but the sports listed here are quite major and well-documented. The nomination just seems to have grabbed a bunch of pages based on their title with any regard to the particular and specific details of each page and sport. Why, for example, is List of fatalities while playing cricket not included in this? The nomination is too hasty and indiscriminate and so I'm calling WP:TRAINWRECK. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cricket? Because that's sports-related, while these others are not. They include car accidents, a diabetic reaction, suicide, World War II, etc. Now that's indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the prior consensus and same reasons given in List of Gaelic footballers who died during their careers. Mainly, them dying isn't notable within the context them playing sports because they are not related at all. Therefore, this it isn't a list worthy topic. Whereas, for things like List of fatalities while playing cricket there is a direct connection between them playing the sport, in that case cricket, and their deaths. Which is why it's not included in this AfD. Nice try on the WP:OSE and WP:LAWYERing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We write about how sources group them. Perhaps it varies by sport or country or both. In any event, if a list needs to be pared down or it's a WP:LOUSYTITLE, those are surmountable issues through editing, not deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andrew that this is a bad case of bundling, each of these should be judged independently and comparing them to the more obscure Gaelic football can't be right. If they've received substantive coverage then they're notable.LM2000 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It's not the sport, but the grab bag of causes of death all "bundled" together. Also what "substantive coverage" is there as a group, per WP:LISTN? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Nobody, but nobody, cited (or even mentioned) the obscurity of the sport as an argument in the Gaelic football Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaelic football only had a couple of entries apparently, List of baseball players who died during their careers has hundreds. Most prominent source is a list of tragic MLB deaths. Professional wrestling shouldn't be here (it isn't a sport) but sources have made or discussed similar lists.[51][52][53][54][55]LM2000 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of those are clearly sensationalist and most (or all) of the deaths have nothing to do with their wrestling careers. Which is the important thing here. For instance one of the wrestlers, who probably isn't notable as one, committed suicide after he lost a foot in a motorcycle accident and did time on drug charges. Should there be a list for wrestlers that aren't otherwise notable because they did time, killed themselves due to it (which had zero to do with their careers), and got mentioned for their death in a sensationalist click bait list? I'd argue no. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're talking about Kerry Von Erich, one of four members of the wrestling Von Erich family to die before 35. Nobody is saying every young wrestler that dies died because they were a wrestler but high quality sources have made lists and looked at trends in the bigger picture. The article opens with study from Eastern Michigan University that examined similar lists and compared rate of deaths to those in sports like the others we are talking about here. The Washington Post and Five Thirty Eight (linked above) examined a smaller sample.LM2000 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News "article" is just a listing aggregated from other news outlets and personal blogs. Whereas, the book is by Irv Muchnick. Who's own bio on his website says he "investigates scandals in sports" and calls him a specialist in "sports muckraking" or in other words, someone who "searches out and publicizes scandalous information about famous people in an underhanded way." Again, that's from his own website. So, how exactly are either of those "high quality" sources? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was talking about Washington Post, 538 and a study from Eastern Michigan University, but we can talk about a self-deprecating comment from a journalist who has written for a variety of sources, including Sports Illustrated, NYT and LA Times too if you want.LM2000 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally keep all The bundled nomination rationale is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as opposed to performing WP:BEFORE and verifying WP:LISTN is not met for each sport. Perhaps deletion was applicable for Gaelic footballers, but it can't be generalized without examining the sources. For basketball, multiple players are mentioned in these:[56][57][58]. This meets LISTN: ... it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. If the concern is that the list should cover non-playing related deaths like murders, then it's a content issue that doesn't merit deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Reyk. Your second source isn't even about someone dying. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet they are discussed as a group in that source: ... the same condition that led to the deaths of basketball stars Hank Gathers, Reggie Lewis, Kevin Duckworth and Jason Collier.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Looking at the articles in question, they are similar enough in form and content that a bundled nomination would be appropriate. It's likely that, if they had been listed separately, people would now be whining about too many AfDs and that they should have been bundled. Dismissing the nomination as merely "IDONTLIKEIT" strikes me more as an effort to spite and annoy the nominator than an attempt to accurately describe the nomination. Reyk _YO! 13:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the articles in question ... You need to consider the sources—including potential ones not already listed—for the articles in question per WP:BEFORE.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these lists have already been shown to pass WP:LISTN by others above. Baseball seems to pass aswell.[59][60][61] Using a list from an obscure sport like Gaelic football as a reason to delete lists from major sports is baffling to say the least. Alvaldi (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are even more lists from baseball, NFL, Football (soccer) and a bundle of all. Alvaldi (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Collections of arbitrary and unrelated deaths. There is not a distinct notability to having occurred while someone was employed in this particular type of job. Lots of people sadly die untimely deaths of many causes, but this occurs for people in every career and there's no reason to compile these by sport played. Unclear how this may be any different from a List of singers who died while still performing, List of actors who died while continuing to act, or List of CEOs who died during their business careers. Reyk's analysis is correct and this is a reasonable bundle of similar articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Just because we do not have a List of CEOs who died during their business careers does not mean that we should not have lists about other similar things per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And on a further note, if the lists passes the notability guidlines set by WP:LISTN, like many of the above lists do, then they belong on Wikipedia regardless of the personal opinions of others. Alvaldi (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging commenters of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gaelic footballers who died during their careers: @Ww2censor:, @Spiderone:, @Gaois:, @Nigej:, @KartikeyaS343:. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all People end (or change) their careers for a million different reasons. Sportspeople are no different, except perhaps that they tend to be younger. Why not List of American football players whose career ended early due to injury or List of American football players whose career ended early because they were no good? It seems to me that this sort of thing is perfectly covered by the Category concept: Category:American football players who died during their careers or whatever. Also the article List of American football players who died during their careers contains a hugely long list of non-notable players who died young. I know there's a common media obsession with these sort of deaths but it's not something we ought to be following. Nigej (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I know there's a common media obsession with [INSERT TOPIC HERE] but it's not something we ought to be following." This is the very definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sentence is so perfectly phrased it should be posted there as a paradigm case. Cbl62 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "I don't like it", it's the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia and are not meant to be the gutter press. Why not at article about well-known people with strange deformities, or some other topic that might appeal to the lowest of the low? Nigej (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Standing on a pedestal and demeaning certain popular topics as appealing only to the "lowest of the low" still sounds a lot like "I don't like it." A well-rounded encyclopedia can appeal to popular topics that are considered both "high" and "low", "serious" and "amusing". There's even room in the encyclopedia for Schlitzie and Koo-Koo the Bird Girl. Cbl62 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's more a matter of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Nigej:, you state "it's not something we ought to be following". If they pass the notability guidlines set by WP:LISTN then they belong on Wikipedia regardless of your personal opinion. As you note yourself, the media does cover those deaths and there are routenly lists with them as has been shown here above.

2. You further state "the article List of American football players who died during their careers contains a hugely long list of non-notable players who died young". WP:LISTN states that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable".

It's rather like listing the names of everyone who's died in a plane crash. All non-notable people. What it proves is that the list itself is not notable, even if such a list of names appears in the media. Nigej (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Alvaldi (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alvaldi; at best, these should be relisted separately to avoid the discussion becoming complete carnage. This is a different discussion to the Gaelic football one because there are actually sources discussing these deaths as a group Spiderone 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People look for these types of lists every time an active athlete dies. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: naturally meets SIGCOV and passes the NCTEST The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are notable topics that get significant coverage especially when someone dies, thus are well searched for and well used. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable sports with significant coverage when an athlete dies. Comparing these to a more obscure sport is incorrect since due to the level of coverage. Some of the lists are poorly formatted and need better introductions, but those are not grounds for deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Aye, this smells like IDONTLIKEIT. There is no reason to lump in basketball and American football with Celtic football. Dying during your career is a well-founded reason to have such a list -- it is a defining characteristic for several of these players. No reason for deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on previous unmentioned AfD The original nomination did not list the earlier AfD, which I have now added above here. That previous one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American football players who died during their career was closed in 2014 as "Keep". Another indication there is no one size fits all for all sports.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My vote is based primarily on the wrestling deaths, for which there have been many articles and news stories about the phenomenon of deaths at an early age. This was particularly prevalent after the Chris Benoit murder-suicide but has been brought up dozens of times with prominent deaths including Owen Hart, Brian Pillman, Davey Boy Smith, and many, many more. With that said, there is obviously a ton of coverage when something shocking like this happens. Hockey was brought into the spotlight just a few years ago with the back-to-back-to-back deaths of Belak, Boogaard, and Rypien. Even athletes from before the internet explosion have significant coverage about their deaths. MLB players Steve Olin and Eric Show died in the early 1990s in separate incidents, but it's easy to find multiple extensive articles about their premature deaths. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 1) this is a WP:TRAINWRECK, it is a vast expansion on a tiny AfD for the relatively obscure sport of Gaelic Football, an AfD that was visited by only 6 commenters, yet it is being applied as a precedent across a swath of significantly more popular (read that Notable) sports and even expanding into the realm of "Sports Entertainment." Deaths within those sports have had significantly more coverage. 2) The article I created, that became List of premature professional wrestling deaths has 13 sources listed in its lede, major media including the BBC and The Washington Post. That alone qualifies this as notable under WP:GNG. 3) Its not a routine throw away situation as suggested by Adamant1. Its not a grab bag as Clarityfiend accused. Deaths among professional wrestlers are 2.9 times greater than normal, that is a significant medical phenomenon beyond even the other sports mentioned in this mass deletion attempt. And the related research suggest a variety of accumulating factors covering the range of deaths. 4) The NOM called this article WP:OR. In reality, this article does what wikipedia can do best. Instead of being limited by the work of a single reporter, this lists compiles information from a multitude of sources into a single location that others can glean from. Its scope and specifications have been discussed and refined to reach the condition it is in now. Now you want to trash years of work and contributions @Kingzwest:, @*Treker:, @HHH Pedrigree:, @EdgarCabreraFariña:, @Jack86mkII:, LM2000 (above) and a host of others including many IPs over 3 and a half years of this article's existence. Thats a lot of damage based on the precedent of an AfD of unrelated, obscure sport's article. Trackinfo (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lets not delete an article because it's been here awhile and doing so would upset you. Anyway, the problem here is that you say wrestling deaths are "a significant medical phenomenon", but then the list of wrestlers who have died includes a ton of wrestlers who died due to causes that are not a part of that "medical phenomenon." Otherwise, your saying that no wrestler ever has died of causes not related their career. Which is just wrong. You making the connection between wrestlers dying because of "a significant medical phenomenon" and a wrestler dying from suicide due to not wanting to face drug chargers, or all the other random ways the wrestlers in the list have died, is exactly where the WP:OR comes in. 100% there is "a significant medical phenomenon" when it comes to wrestlers dying. Most of the ones on this list haven't died because of it though. The sources don't claim they have and saying otherwise is original research. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of American football players who died during their careers must NOT be 75% non-notable individuals in the College section, my removal of which was reverted. While some are in fact notable with articles, most are not discussed as part of a whole set in independent reliable sources. These lists should be limited to notable individuals. There are millions of non-notable students who participate in collegiate sports, and this is not the place to compile an arbitrary cross-categorization of every person who died in a car accident or other unfortunate but irrelevant reason merely because they played one particular sport vs. another or none at all. Reywas92^Talk 07:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk page. There's enough blue links on the page where the outcome of that discussion is immaterial to this AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As other users said beforme me (talking about wrestling), media covering the death of pro wrestlers at a young age has been covereded several times by media. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wrestling list The phenomenon of pro wrestlers and their coworkers dying very prematurely is a major issue in the industry and has been covered by countless media outlets for decades. I can't speak for the other lists as I have no experience with them.★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as the bundling was ill-thought out and this discussion is already a car crash. Re-nominate and consider separately. Giant Snowman 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Bagumba and Giantsnowman. Cbl62 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 00:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep How can an AFD for a sport only played in one country, that many have never even heard of, be precedent to delete article about major international sports? Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flimsy, that would be a good word to use. Trackinfo (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not as flimsy as saying an article should be kept becauase its been around for three years and edited by a "host" of IP users is. Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADGER. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAWYERING. Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIGHTENUP. Cbl62 (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the ice hockey list, as I don't know enough on the other sports to comment. However as someone who has actively worked on hockey players who died during their career (seeing five of them promoted to FA), a major part of their notability, aside from playing the sports, was their untimely deaths. While they had different causes, they were all known for the same thing, and it is a point noted whenever someone else is added to that list. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 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. Sandstein 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sass Somekh[edit]

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

This individual is not notable as little, if any, media coverage exists regarding them. Thus, the article would seem to fail WP:BIO. Additionally, the article reads like a resume and cites to only one source, so I also don't consider it to be up to Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a non-notable engineer/inventor with absolutely nothing by way of WP:SIRS Spiderone 09:22, 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. Sandstein 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brick&Bolt[edit]

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

An unnotable organisation that doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Sliekid (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided references to all the content in the page, could you let me know what to edit(change) in the page to prevent deletion. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs)
Delete In addition to being not notable, the article is highly promotional, as can be sen from the origin story, typical of what PR people write for their clients. Even more important, Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a small and relatively new business, and the content is promotional in tone. The referencing is repetitive and based on press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All refs are derived from press releases that the company has received start-up funding. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have mentioned, reads in a promotional way, not a significant company Eyebeller (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The founder is my friend and it was my idea to start a Wikipedia page as a gift for starting a successful business.I am open to suggestions and ready to change anything in the page to ensure the page doesnt get deleted. Please do let me know what to do to avoid deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs)

NitinBnB, please read WP:COI. AllyD (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cullen's comments about the article. I think the kind of sources used is problematic, as they are bound to publish about this kind of company anyway. Mathias (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I read the COI page. I understand there is a conflict of interest, but I have written the page stating only facts from the references provided. I assure you that the sources mentioned are not paid publishing and are pure facts. I had written the page referring another Wikipedia page "Log9 materials" which use the same type of reference materials, so I assumed the sources provided will be accepted. Please feel free to edit the page{{request edit}}. I am new here and am trying to contribute without disrupting any Wikipedia guidelines. NitinBnB (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Log 9 Materials should be nominated for deletion, as much of the content is about it having received start-up funding. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient sources for this small company.--Hippeus (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promotional article with sources entirely based on funding annoucements (paid PR).Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falling way short of WP:NCORP; could well be deleted per WP:SNOW Spiderone 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is essentially standard notices and the article as writ is promotional. A Google News search only returns more standard notices (string: Brick&bolt). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider not deleting the page, I had referred pages like "Log9 materials" and "HouseJoy", these pages were published long before "Brick&Bolt" and are not deleted. I am confused why Brick&Bolt is up for deletion where as those pages have the same sources, same type of article structure and are not considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for more specific details, but basically this discussion is an assessment of this article's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia on its own merits. It's quite possible that those other articles you mentioned shouldn't exist or should've never been created, but that's another discussion for a different time. So, if you feel this article should be kept, you should clarify why in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; not in terms of other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small private software development company of 66 individuals. Entirely non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP on my levels. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Kuzmanović[edit]

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

GNG fail. Article was deleted by PROD in August 2019 with reasoning I agree with: "not notable. seems to be a self-publisher of written work. no refs, no useful ghits I've found." See also this AfD, which seems related. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are unreliable. Also the article appears to indicate that the subject is notable for generating nonsense text, which is more likely to be a claim than a real achievement. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - The sources are as for any other Serbian musician RELIABLE: Discogs with albums, MusicBrainz. PAGE HAVE AUTHORITY CONTROL, Orcid, and great wikicommons archive with ogg files, valid .jpg files, the author is going to be in Library of Congress next year (two more books)! Why should delete page with valuable .jpg and DISCOGS notion. --Lepota (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia criteria to pass GNG, NARTIST, nor BIO guidelines. Wikipedia is not for promoting every artist or musician in the world. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG; I can't see or find even one decent reliable source Spiderone 23:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources seems unauthentic hence fails WP:GNG. Woinfosd (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this article, but there does seem to be some agreement that it might be a suitable candidate for merging. I'd suggest starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page if editors are so inclined. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 23:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Student[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable citing largely primary sources. "Keep" arguments in the previous AfD hinged on inherited notability from members and the associated institution, contrary to the current notability guidelines WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGSIG which have been introduced in WP:ORG since then. 17jiangz1 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is the newspaper of the Cambridge Students' Union and so the worst case would be merger into that page. Per WP:ATD, deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 2 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) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable student newspaper that fails WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:GNG. Coverage in the article is primarily from other student newspapers at Cambridge, which I am not inclined to rely on for notability purposes. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge Students' Union since there isn't multiple in-depth sources about this, but it seems like a viable search term. So a redirect would be the best option IMHO. I don't think a merge is a good option though, because the sourcing just isn't there to warrant it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A WP:BEFORE search turned up enough to satisfy me. Most compellingly, there are two articles from The Independent, Cambridge University newspaper urges union to save ‘one of the best student papers in the country’ and Closure of Cambridge University student newspaper draws heavy criticism. After that, I found PCC: Cambridge University newspaper wrong to quote anonymous Nazi jibe against academic from Press Gazette. Neither of those are Cambridge-based publications, so that's GNG right there. And then there's a ton of outside coverage of the Philip Brooke scandal, much of which is predictably from non-reliable tabloids, but some of which I can't so easily dismiss, such as this article from York Vision. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with rewrite, otherwise delete/merge into CUSU. It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). There is some argument that it meets WP:GNG, perhaps in terms of its history as an institution. I'm generally not persuaded by the links I've been able to find, nor by those quoted on this AfD.
- The two articles from The Independent rely on TCS's inherited notability from the University of Cambridge. Even the newsworthiness of the move from print to online is doubtful: coverage of the move comes primarily from other student newspapers in Cambridge.
- The Independent article seems to me to rely on inherited notability from the university and students' union. In justifying the claim that TCS is "one of the great Cambridge student institutions", it quotes an open letter of 60 people (a minuscule number for a student body of over 20,000), all of whom previously held positions at TCS.

I would vote keep for the article if it can be rewritten with a focus on its history rather than as a description of the newspaper as a contemporary institution. This stretches it as far as I can go because TCS is quite a young institution, just over 20 years old. Student newspapers can ebb and flow from student intake to intake, so it might be too soon for us to decide that TCS is non-notable, especially because it is backed by the students' union. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (periodicals) is just an essay, and one that seems mostly tailored to academic journals; I prefer to look to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals for newspapers, which is also an essay but fits much better. And a rewrite would certainly be nice, but since notability is a property of the subject, not the page, it's not necessary.{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few sourced sentences from this stub into the Union article on student life. Per above, the listed sources are not significant coverage—no depth into the actual newspaper and the superlative headline claim is coming from their own news staff and alumni. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not clear if this is a keep, merge, or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am on the same page with Sdkb per his note above. Well said. At worst I would suggest a Merge into the student union article.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:18, 24 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 13:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anamodernism[edit]

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

An invented term... original research. May also be connected to Vladan Kuzmanović, a promotional effort. In any case, this is an invented non-notable subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is largely incomprehensible. It reads like much postmodernist writing, as if it was badly translated from French (even if the author is a graduate of American universities). This is the sort of writing that was spoofed in the Sokal affair. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of the article does not meet WP notability criteria for WP:GNG. Agree with the nominator that it was likely written to promote Vladan Kuzmanović (also up for deletion). Strong indication of possible COI. Or as @Robert McClenon: points out, it could be a Sokal affair-type hoax. It reads like it was created using a Postmodernism Generator random-phrase generator (Dada Engine), written as a parody the opacity of certain art historical texts. I had tagged it for hoax, but the article creator removed the tag. It does not make any sense whatsoever, and is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether it is a manifesto or a hoax; it is not an encyclopedia article. Vexations (talk) 14:26, 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. BD2412 T 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Hanson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotionally-toned article created by SPA. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or more specific guidelines such as WP:NJOURNALIST. WP:BEFORE shows material by subject (though not in RSes) and mentioning subject (in tabloid-level sources), but nothing about subject to base a BLP on. The article has never contained good, non-promotional sourcing up to the standards of BLP. If this were cut down to RSes, it would barely exist - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. Other than a single BBC Radio show, he's never been covered significantly in any reliable source. He's a run of the mill wannabe 'expert'.Bearian (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote, but a policy-based discussion - on what notability criteria would you say it be kept? - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are a lot of references in this article! None of them seem to be very good. The first one is to an article written primarily about him. All of the rest are sourced to WP:SPS except the single blurb in the Telegraph about a television programme (which mentions his leaving it), and the Google Books link is just commenting on that Telegraph article in passing. jp×g 11:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many self-published sources failing WP:SPIP and blogs, failing WP:NOT and. So it seems there is not a single secondary source available. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 27 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. Sandstein 13:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musskan Sethi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP who has not played significant roles in multiple notable films and thus fails NACTOR. Faizal batliwala (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per minor roles in a few films. --TamilMirchi (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE.
Delete does not meet the actress notability threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close To Admin

Keep as she passes GNG. She has multiple reliable news articles. She has acted in 2 notable movies as noted character.

2401:4900:4720:6960:3548:ACC1:77E3:B81C (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor roles in a few films fails WP:ENT. Serankail (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead roles in two notable movies Paisa Vasool (2017 film) and Raagala 24 Gantallo, along with some good coverage online is fine for the article to be kept. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:16, 6 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) 06:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 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. Sandstein 13:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikar Madiraju[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Can't find anything on him or his work. Not sure where the 'films were well received by the critics' is coming from. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref 1, 2, and 4 don't even mention the subject and the third one discusses briefly. Fail GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 11:15, 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 keep. Consensus that this party meets WP:NORG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NLBeter[edit]

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

Very minor political party, has never participated in an election or won seats on any level of government MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party is a serious contender for the 2021 Dutch general election and has received significant coverage from major (national) newspapers and media: De Telegraaf^[1], de Volkskrant^[2], Noordhollands Dagblad^[3], Trouw^[4], Op1^[5] to name a few. The article definitely needs improvement, but in my opinion, it meets the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 13:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More independent sources that have written about the party: NOS^[6], EenVandaag^[7], HP/De Tijd^[8], Elsevier Magazine^[9] ― Ætoms ^[talk] 23:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ætoms: some have issues:

De Telegraaf^[10] opinion piece from the lijsttrekker, not independent
de Volkskrant^[11] good
Noordhollands Dagblad^[12] Name of the author not mentioned there, but I found Mirjam Kaijer at the source. Seems alright, but the article is not primarily about the political party, though part of it is. Not sure if this counts as "significant".
Trouw^[13] opinion piece from the lijsttrekker, not independent
NOS^[14] good
EenVandaag^[15] good (though EenVandaag and NOS are both part of the NPO, they should be independent though, the Dutch system is a bit complicated, I'd prefer not basing an article solely on NPO-sources)
HP/De Tijd^[16] good
Elsevier Magazine^[17] While more than a mere mention, this doesn't go very deep. Not sure if this counts as "significant".

I haven't checked Op1. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources: Reformatorisch Dagblad (thou shalt not read the news on Sunday thou heathen!), Leeuwarder Courant, a very short article from LEF magazine and an interview mostly about the lijsttrekker from Parool. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing by Ætoms is very solid (basically all major Dutch news outlets), but I am still leaning towards delete. Usually around 30/40 new parties participate in the Dutch general election and usually one or two of them manage to get a seat in parliament. The other parties are then usually dissolved shortly after and forgotten. Major news outlets will always write an article about these newcomer parties. However, they are unlikely to get sustained coverage after this one article. This party has never won any seats and has currently zero seats in all major polls (for example). It is not impossible for the party to get a seat or play a role in Dutch politics, but for now it seems at least WP:TOOSOON. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristan Surtel: Is there a basis in policy for this? Notability is generally determined by media coverage. If the national media massively reports on a cat that's stuck in a tree, that's notable. I'm not remotely interested in the Kardashians and never had a pet rock, I may think it's bullshit or a fad, but those things are notable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a recent political party, so these news articles saying "hey, here's a new political party" do not seem to make it pass WP:SUSTAINED. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristan Surtel: WP:NTEMP on the same page says "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

Several of these articles go significantly deeper than "hey, here's a new political party". And as it says in the section you linked: "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability", so sustained coverage is an indicator, no requirement. I suppose you could use the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER argument for the Elsevier Magazine reference which doesn't have much depth, but several others do. "A topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"." (from the section you linked) and I think that's the case here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This requirement appears to have been met. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ [9]
^ [10]
^ [11]
^ [12]
^ [13]
^ [14]
^ [15]
^ [16]
^ [17]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that WP:ORGCRIT has been met. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 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 no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. It does not appear likely that further relisting will generate a clearer outcome. BD2412 T 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Base (political party)[edit]

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

Very minor political party, has never participated on its own in an election or won seats on any level of government MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party adds information to Wikipedia that may not be found elsewhere, and just because it is small doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article ;and just because it hasn't won many offices doesn't mean it isn't notable. The Vermont Progressive Party hasn't won many offices and you can view it here on Wikipedia. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This political party has not been shown to have significance in any setting. The Vermont Progressive Party is irrelevant to this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / keep. I'd like to point out that the party has in fact participated on its own in the 2014 and 2018 municipal elections (in Amsterdam and Utrecht, which are the largest and fourth largest municipalities in terms of population). I agree with the points made by @Dswitz10734: the article provides a collection of information that may not be found elsewhere, and the party's notability is not determined by the number of seats it has won. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current article references. @Dswitz10734 and Ætoms: It is true that seats won do not determine notability. A party could get no seats whatsoever yet get reported on for whatever reason and become notable that way. The Pirate Party (Netherlands) comes to mind. (the Dutch article has more sources) The reverse while less common can also happen: a party may actually get seats but be so bland that nobody can be bothered to write about them, in which case the party wouldn't be notable despite having seats. Trying to interpret Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria I see the following references in the article: [62] (not independent), [63] (valid source), [64] (not significant) and [65]. (not independent)

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

There is only one in the article references. My vote (and perhaps that of others) could change if more sources are added. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: you're right! I expanded the article and added more independent secondary sources. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a discussion on the sources added by User:Ætoms
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 01:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ætoms and Scottywong: Reviewing the new sources based on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria (significant, independent, reliable, secondary):

[66] no depth, insignificant
[67] insignificant mention on a list
[68] insignificant mention on a list
[69] very little depth
[70] not super deep, but I'll accept this one
[71] mostly passing mention
[72] "where are the lijsttrekkers that lost now" article, no information about the party
[73] no information about the party
[74] election results, no mention in the article text

So the only sources we have here that establish some notability are [75] (the one we already had) which is good and [76] for which I'm probably being lenient to allow it. Does this satisfy being the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? I guess two is technically multiple, but I don't feel overly convinced. The party has plenty of passing mentions (as most new political parties do), but those don't count towards notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I don't feel like it's enough to change my vote. If there were one more proper in-depth article, I'd probably vote keep, but as it is.. Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, a political party isn't notable based on offices won. Plus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy. It is an opinion that some editors agree with. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a database, however when people want information, they like to turn to Wikipedia. To keep content and valuable information on Wikipedia, we must keep this article. I suggest we find out how many page views per day it gets and go from there. --Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734: The number of pageviews does not confer notability per WP:POPULARPAGE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristan Surtel, the page you left in your comment is an essay, an opinion, not a guideline or policy. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734: I recently looked at Devin Stone/LegalEagle, a YouTube channel with 1.36M subscribers who also appeared on well known channels like Half as Interesting, Dr. Mike and Tom Scott. When you enter "legal eagle" on Google, one of the suggestions is "legal eagle wikipedia", so people are looking for the article already. And most are probably not looking for the airplane the article title redirects to now. I'm sure such an article would get views. But to my surprise, I couldn't quite find enough sources to establish notability. So alas, no article for now. Though where I expect Devin Stone/LegalEagle to become notable under current guidelines possibly fairly soon, I'm less sure about The Base. Page views don't establish notability. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz, Wikipedia is made to help people. It's made to make information free to everyone. I understand that Wikipedia is not a database, but making reliable facts free to everyone is Wikipedia's mission. Perhaps Merging would be a better option than deleting. If someone who is reading this supports the idea of merging, please look for a page to merge with, or consider creating a Minor Political Parties in the Netherlands or the already existing List of political parties in the Netherlands.

@Alexis Jazz and Dswitz10734: Indeed I'd strongly discourage deletion of the article's content. Although I'm in favor of keeping it as a separate article, it could perhaps be merged into Universal basic income in the Netherlands should the consensus be to delete. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the WP:GNG per items 2, 8 and 9 above. gidonb (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added [77] to the article, which – in my opinion – also qualifies as a valid secondary source. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ætoms: OOG is the local broadcaster for Groningen. (the city, not the province) WP:ORGCRIT requires attention from international, national, or at least regional media. To what degree local media can help to establish notability is unclear, the policy seemingly suggests that local media could be used if at least one other source is regional or wider. But my interpretation of the policy may be flawed. Another issue is that I can't find OOG's editorial policy. (required by WP:RS) They most likely have one ("OOG staat voor haar journalistieke uitgangspunten" hints at this), perhaps it is also published somewhere, but I can't find it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think I would swing to neutral if OOG turns out to have published their editorial policy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the link for pageviews: [78] Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the improvements/additions made since AfD nomination alone, I would like to keep. I know this is not a scientific reason, but several hundred voters made the effort to support this party - I'd prefer to be able to look them up with even the rudimentary information provided in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:31, 24 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Payne (actor)[edit]

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

the subject is not notable, not relevant 2nd sources are shown to support notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, is XRCO Hall of Fame inductee from 1999, also see Metro Weekly, "starring ’70s gay porn icon George Payne". Also The Daily Beast, which called him a "veteran" actor, "The two leads were to be played by Scorpio (as Octavius) and the veteran George Payne, who was cast as Demetrius.". Right cite (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - Roger editor (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as he has starred in notable porn films both in the straight and gay industry such as The Back Row, Centurians of Rome, The Tale of Tiffany Lust, and several of the 'Avon' series of the films such as The Taming of Rebecca. He and some of his career have been written about in non-trivial form in multiple books, newspapers and magazines, some of which is already cited in the article and pointed about by previous voters. There is also an The Advocate article (1) plus other coverage of varying degrees on google books. Susie Bright called him a gay porn megastar in this 1988 Advocate article.2 Plus his induction into the XRCO Hall of Fame (decided by industry critics) shouldn't be discounted. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a research project and improved and expanded the article, (please see version after expansion and improvements, essentially substantially different article from when it was originally nominated). 1999 inductee to XRCO Hall of Fame. Metro Weekly called him a "70s gay porn icon". Susie Bright put him among "megastars of gay erotica" including Casey Donovan (actor). See also an existing Good Article model for how this article was improved and will continue to be improved further, at Casey Donovan (actor). Thanks for taking another look, Right cite (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments - enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to write a neutral article and meeting the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Gbear605 (talk) 19:34, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Melih[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's hard to decide notability for swimmers as there is no 'NSWIMMER'. I would say, however, that she is notable because of the fact that she has won 3 gold medals in the same continental championships and has broken several national records. She has hardly any coverage in English language sources but the French Wikipedia article does show some good coverage in French. [79] [80] [81] Spiderone 21:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Spiderone, seems notable to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable swimmer. Sources: 1, 2, 3. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the medals and national records. Plus, the sources found by Spiderone and SportsOlympic. I think all of that should be enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 00:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Salzman[edit]

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

As per WP:PERPETRATOR, this should be a redirect to NXIVM, but warrants discussion at this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – As per WP:PERPETRATOR, specifically "#2 The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", it can be argued that the cult known as NXIVM has reached significant national and international recognition due to the abundance of media and documentary coverage implicating Salzman as a central figure in the cult.^[1] Documented coverage of Salzman's involvement has recently been supported by the documentary series known as The Vow.^[2] Salzman created the hypnosis sessions and curricula within ESP (Enterprise Success Programs) that would be rebranded as NXIVM. Salzman was also the only individual with some form of medical license (RN), which introduces the discussion of medical malpractice within the hypnosis schemes that were the core of NXIVM's brainwashing techniques.^[3] While I understand Salzman had a minimal sentence for racketeering compared to Keith Raniere, she was just as guilty for creating the cult that endangered the lives of so many.^[4] Long story short, NXIVM would not exist without the unusual criminal mind of Salzman, meriting an article in her own right under point #2 in WP:PERPETRATOR under Wikipedia's Notability standards. — Scott218 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – This person was a major perpetrator in a notable and large scale criminal case. Articles on the main people involved are crucial for understanding the case and help understand additional contextual background. Without such information, the articles on the related subjects (e.g. NXIVM, Keith Raniere) are less complete. The article is well supported by independent external sources. --Matcobik (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/nyregion/nxivm-nancy-salzman-keith-raniere-charges.html
^ https://www.hbo.com/the-vow
^ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6731-Nxivm-lawsuit/2de597cdf78faec941b7/optimized/full.pdf
^ https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding

DELETE - This article is factually incorrect on almost every single count, including Ms Salzman's birth place, medical degree and involvement in NXIVM. NXIVM was not a multi level marketing company, nor was it a cult. Nancy Salzman has been directly involved in the case against NXIVM, but the stated facts about her involvement are incorrect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place that supports factual information. Branding Ms Salzman as a "criminal" bears no significance to this page. Al Capone is one of the most notorious criminals of all time, as is Charles Bronson. Neither of their pages call them a "Criminal". This page is deliberately designed to defame Ms Salzman and Wikipedia should be ashamed of allowing these practices to continue unchecked. Craftercreeper (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the accusations outlined above: All of the points made in the article are factual and have been properly sourced. Please check the sources before making these claims. She was convicted of a crime (I suggest you read this press release distributed by the Department of Justice here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding). — Scott218 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:PERP. Sources are ok as well.BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:PERP states: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" (emphasis added). In this case, such an article exists: NXIVM. WP:PERP further states: "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article..." (emphasis added). Because an appropriate article already exists (NXIVM), and Salzman is not otherwise notable, this article should be deleted. Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is important information for the public. This woman founded a criminal enterprise that was a risk to the public. Most media focuses only on the male founder, and it is important that there be equal information about this female founder as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.132.191 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 13:1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.84.6 (talk) 20:16, 26 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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 00:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ihejiamaizu[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Plenty of self-promotional refs. US awards are non-notable. No independent and reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Err, could somebody explain which references from this article are supposed to be unreliable and why? The references regarding the U.S. State Department awards [82][83] seem to be both reliable and independent to me. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92, Err, Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the onus is on the article creator to explain what & what sources are reliable not on us. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting you: you are in fact wrong. You and the nominator are the ones arguing for deletion and claiming that some sources are unreliable and non-independent. You need to back up these claims, since you made them. Otherwise they are just unjustified assertions, carrying no weight. I repeat, what is the problem with independence and reliability of sources like [84][85]? Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources reference the US department of state alumni membership. According to this this is open to all "past and current participants of U.S. government-funded and U.S. government-facilitated exchange programs ....." - so not by any means exclusive or contributing in any way to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk}

I am not saying it's a Nobel Prize or anything of the sort, but the U.S. State Department profile of the subject [86] is a reliable independent source providing specific and detailed coverage, and in this way it does contribute to notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Plus the phrase "is open to all past and present ..." refers to eligibility. They still conduct a selective process for choosing the recipients of these awards and don't simply pick them randomly. Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly, she is not notable as an academic, but she appears to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a social enterprenuer. There are multiple examples of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources, including two stories in The Guardian (Nigeria),[87],[88], at Premium Times [89], several other news stories in Nigerian news outlets [90][91][92], [93], a profile at the World Economic Forum [94], at the U.S. State Department [95], etc. Plenty enough to satify WP:GNG and WP:BIO here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar has 4 research papers from her, however they are not widely cited, so it doesn't meet the academic criteria, but as above voter stated she meets WP:GNG.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not notable for anything ,except, possibly, for self-promotion. I see no evidence in the article or the sources that she is in any sense notable as a social entrepreneur, even assuming that someone could become notable as a social entrepreneur, or that it's a meaningful designation. It's one of the red-flag terms -- when I see it on New Pages or as a draft, I assume it's non-encyclopedic promotionalism , unless proven otherwise. All of the awards are promotional or trivial, as would be expected. All of the press was either written either directly or indirectly by her pr staff. The original ed. was blocked for sockpuppettry; it's been cleaned up by a reliable editor, mainly by removing the worst of the references, but there's nothing encyclopedic actually there. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author now blocked for socking. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG; the subject appears not to be notable except for her undoubted abilities in self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG's analysis is sound. A promotional article with weak sourcing based on recycled press release/PR guff. Edwardx (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well written but, ultimately, the notability isn't demonstrated from the sources Spiderone 21:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well written, and she seems to be doing very good work that helps people, but this does not make someone notable; none of the distinctions seem to bring her above GNG and giving a TEDx talk is, well, not exactly hard to arrange. jp×g 10:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had spent a fair bit of time cleaning this up when I came across it, and was minded to nominate it for deletion but thought it was borderline. If you strip away the interviews, what we are left with is an impressive young person who was selected for a US exchange programme and may be destined for great things, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. I see this as self-promotion, and likely the result of undeclared paid editing. (I don't agree with the nom's assertion that there are 'no independent and reliable sources' though.) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interview in the guardian Nigeria. [[96]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the World Economic Forum indicating that she is part public-private network that is doing well in the 3rd sector. What that means is she has been active at a high level the 3rd sector, such that she has been noticed, outside her own country. Worth keeping for the moment. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: To unpack what it means to be 'a member of the World Economic Forum' take a look at the page about her on the WEF site and ignore the bio that she's no doubt written herself and focus on what the WEF say she is: a 'global shaper' from the Calabar Hub. The Global Shapers website explains that 'the Global Shapers Community is a non-profit organization registered in Geneva, Switzerland and housed at the World Economic Forum'. The WEF provides funding for its operations. However the key thing that the page tells us is that there are over 13,000 such global shapers - young people thinking globally but acting locally - so it is hardly an exclusive honour, and being a global shaper would not make someone notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Curb Safe Charmer: Yip, your right and good chunk of them are on here, with articles. Prior consensus has found that several of them, which I took to Afd or participated in, were notable, and I don't see any reason why this person is not notable either. I think there is perhaps a level of detail for want of a better word, that folk on here don't understand or perhaps don't experience. I don't have experience of either to be honest, so I had to do the work in the previous Afd's. Put simply, for somebody who is very young to achieve that level in the 3rd sector, sufficient to gain notice of an international organisation, entry into the WEF and then to achieve a Mandela fellowship, taking her from Nigeria to the US is sufficient to achieve notability. It is almost an entirely unique experience for one so young. There is probably couple of hundred folk in the world that achieve that level at that age, every year. scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 27 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. It doesn't seem like we're any closer to figuring out whether the information is Verifable and in compliance with our policy on Original Research than we were after the first relist. I don't see that a third relist is likely to bring us closer to consensus. Perhaps a new discussion (after waiting at least a few months) will find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOT. Seems an attempt to track "current" exemptions and stats rather than present anything encyclopedic. Content merely duplicates that available on the PGA Tour website and in media guides, sourced exclusively from primary sources, with some original research. Details regarding changes to criteria, etc. are already covered in the season articles and these are the generally the only details that are covered in independent reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted. It tracks the current priority rankings of the PGA Tour which continually change after every tournament. It also provide the reader with a list of current PGA members and explains the way the priority rankings operate, and thus, it not merely duplicative. Further, at the end of the season it allows the reader to determine where the golfer will end up in next year's priority rankings, and whether they are likely to retain their PGA Tour membership. The article takes information from a variety of sites and puts them in a user friendly format, and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLeran4 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely it's not our role to maintain such a highly detailed list. Could perhaps usefully be kept in someone user space, for reference purposes; but that's a separate issue. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page for this last season. Been off wiki for a bit for medical reasons, will update on my reasoning soon Jopal22 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My motivation for this was page was to have something similar to 2019 PGA Championship#Field for the PGA Tour. When I first starting looking at golf articles these meant I understood a lot better the qualification for the majors (although I like that these are now on a separate page). Arguably PGA Tour status is more important to a player than any single major. Essentially I think having these pages gives much more context to how the PGA Tour works. It was really useful to me and I hoped this page would be to others. Specifically things that it enables that I couldn't find anywhere else on wikipedia are:
  - Allows a complete list of players on the PGA Tour.
  - Gives context to the importance of each category and how the PGA Tour functions
  - Explicitly sets out who lost their PGA Tour cards and how (not needed this year due to COVID changes). This isn't really addressed anywhere else and without it is like having a European football league page that only cares about champions and not relegation.
  - Explicitly sets out who joined the tour.
- Comment: In terms of being encyclopaedic and based on primary sources. I would argues items such are getting a PGA Tour exemption when winning a tournament or finishing in the top 125 FedEx, gaining temporary membership, losing your PGA Tour card etc are widely discussed in the golf media. Wikipedia is not a newspaper though so we should be representing this in a more encyclopedic and structured way as has been done here. Wikipedia is not against using primary sources when the source is objective and requires no ambiguity. This is similar to the justification for field listing and pages such as 2019 Korn Ferry Tour Finals graduates.
- Comment: Thirdly I would say the fact that other wikipedia users are keeping records of this, and there has been positive feedback and engagement from others apart from myself (I didn't create this page this year) -- there was one response on a golf talk page saying they recognised my name as I created this page in 2019-20 and it was the best page on wikipedia as it helped them understand the tour. Annoyingly I can't find this now! As for the point made by User:Phinumu, it wasn't actually my intention originally to do all the reordering but other people started doing it. I think now the PGA Tour media guide is digital it is more transparent - but happy to not have reordering and keep everything alphabetical. So from the above I don't think this should be deleted or falls foul of wiki rules. Even if there is a marginal argument it does I would argue WP:IAR as this has been very useful to some people to understand the tour, and there is no argument that it is not factual true, well set out and well maintained. Also I would mention although the PGA Tour wikipedia page does set out the categories, I notice this has not been updated for changes in the last few years, does not really give the same context for understanding as these pages do, and is subject to WP:RECENT Jopal22 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also User:Wjemather, could you point to the part of WP:NOT you think this fall foul of as I couldn't identify it. Thanks. Jopal22 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm somewhat ambivalent here. In theory I'm in favor of having such a page. But in practice, it's almost impossible to keep adequately sourced. I maintain a similar list at User:Phinumu/PGA Tour exemptions, but there are often assumptions I have to make – for instance, while Rob Bolton keeps an updated list of the graduate reshuffle order, I have to figure out the order for the conditional guys and the past champions myself based on their FedEx Cup ranks. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To expand on my nomination rationale and answer the query above... I suggest that these articles contravene NOT on at least three counts: WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIR, WP:RAWDATA, as they are simple listings of primary source data. There is also, as mentioned, WP:OR issues with some content (e.g. updates) being unsourced and assumptive, based on personal knowledge. Third party sources do not cover the priority ranking to anything close to such a granular level – therefore, nor should we. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two things I would like to say at the outset:

- I am the one who told Jopal22 that this is the best page that has been published since I've been a user on Wikipedia. It is incredibly detailed and is so obviously valuable! Exemption status is so important and yet it is so hard to find anywhere on the internet. As far I know the PGA Tour doesn't even have it accessible anywhere. This is a huge addition to WikiProject Golf and I am somewhat in shock that this year's page is up for deletion.

- The page may not live up to some people's pedantic prescriptions for an encyclopedia entry but it, again, seems so obviously valuable. Even if it does not perfectly adhere to some rules what about WP:IAR? This immediately crossed my mind when I came across this deletion page. Jopal22 mentioned this too.

Could I hear more in layman's terms (I'm still sort of new to Wikipedia) as to why exactly this does not fulfill the criteria for an encyclopedia? Is it mainly because it is a fluid, evolving thing and will be hard to cite the changes?

I would like to hear back. I will respond more comprehensively in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

You've described and confirmed exactly why it fails criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia as unverifiable original research. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is extremely valuable to understanding the PGA Tour, it is well maintained by multiple users, and factually accurate. There is no reason it should be deleted. Thank you Jopal22 for creating such a valuable resource. McLeran4 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will we be hearing from an administrator soon? This has been up for deletion for 10 days now.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the keep votes are persuasive that this is not OR but I'l like more input on what reliable sourcing the list is based on
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Original Research. It is organized in an original, understandable, and user friendly format. However, all the content is pulled from the sources are included on the Wiki page under references. McLeran4 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Sources only cover the bare lists at certain points in time; much of the additional detail is unsourced OR, as confirmed by others above. Strip out the OR and all we have is a MIRROR of the sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that has been highlighted as marginal OR is reordering of the Past Champions category 3 times in the season. That is marginal to the page and can be discarded. You have not highlighted anything else as OR, because it is not. Feel free to correct me on anything else you feel is OR. Jopal22 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add sources (preferable some independent ones – clue: they don't exist) to verify everything that is currently unsourced. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you have failed to actually highlight what exact items you see as original research. It's tough for me to reply in that scenario. As an attempt at guessing I link to Rory McIlory's page on the PGA Tour website as an example. https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.28237.rory-mcilroy.html. EXEMPT STATUS: PGA TOUR: Winner, THE PLAYERS Championship (thru 2025-26). You to ask me to spend time adding more sources when you don't highlight anything specific you need sourcing, and you know I wouldn't want to spend time on a page that is being targeted for deletion. Jopal22 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hate to keep this going another week, but it would be great to see some analysis from other uninvolved editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 01:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is way too much WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again : Exemption status is constantly mentioned in the media. It seems every week on TV they are talking about a golfer with fringe status who is trying pick up points and advance his exemption status. For example, during the broadcast of the Barracuda Championship on the Golf Channel they were consistently talking about the permutations that would determine whether Matthias Schwab could make the PGA Tour. (I believe he needed a solo third or joint runner-up finish. Ultimately, he finished T-3 and didn't get it.) Also, the exemption status of Will Zalatoris has come up in just about every PGA Tour broadcast this fall. The announcers may not specifically say the exact words "2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking" but they are obviously referencing this. Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

@Oogglywoogly: You don't get to !vote more than once (see WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line"). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for "voting" again. I breezed through ‑Scottywong's comment, not noticing that he was just looking for previously "uninvolved" editors.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Keep Topic is clearly notable and content disputes are not a reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on your WP:Clearly notable claim? Also, it is incorrect to frame this as a simple content dispute; without the problematic content (per WP:NOT rawdata/mirror/guide/directory and WP:OR in particular), there is no article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you are requesting Smartyllama to explain his or her position when your comments, particularly with respect to OR, have not provided anything but conclusory assertions to support your nomination. I am not sure why you are so intent on the deletion of this page when multiple users have attested to its value. If you convey something of substance with respect to your complaints then users would be able to improve this page and remedy your alleged shortcomings. Until you provide something specific, all you have produced are general complaints with no concreate reason to justify your deletion nomination. McLeran4 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being WP:USEFUL does not equate to being encyclopedic. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be both a mirror and OR. Those are nearly exact opposites of each other. As others have said, it is the people who have made these claims for deletion who need to explain them bette. Smartyllama (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained very clearly. With the OR removed, a mirror is all that remains (and the reverse is also true); a mirror that also falls foul of rawdata. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to blindly reproduce lists such as these. The priority ranking itself is covered (albeit badly) in the PGA Tour article, and any seasonal changes are covered in the season articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:19, 24 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. czar 09:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Moussa[edit]

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

A WP:COATRACK article. Almost all the sources are about the business (which gives a benefit of the doubt to the couple sources I can't access) and I can't find any sources which discuss him specifically in a WP:BEFORE newspaper search. Not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTINHERITED. By all accounts, this is an ordinary business person. The sources are terrible - either not independent of the subject, or passing tangents of mentions. He appears to have gotten coverage due to a past hurricane. 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete looks like a lot of sources but as nom says lacking indepth coverage on him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 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.

[1] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'". Retrieved 24 October 2020.

[2] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[3] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[4] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[5] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[6] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[7] "Pieke was slachtoffer van verkrachting: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[8] "Aangifte tegen YouTuber leidt aanvankelijk tot niets: 'De politie heeft mijn zaak verneukt'".

[9] "Zelden rechtszaak na verkrachting".

[10] "Reactie Stichting Cassandra op de consultatie Wet seksuele misdrijven".

[11] "Een écht internationale Vrouwendag-mars".

[12] "'Mask for Justice' op het Vrijthof in Maastricht".

[13] "Her death made headlines. We should learn from her life, instead". Retrieved 24 October 2020.

[14] "OM: 'Man (23) uit Ochten verkrachtte drie vriendinnen'". Retrieved 24 October 2020.

[15] "Verkrachtingszaken komen zelden voor de rechter".

[16] "Overheid, steun de zedenslachtoffers beter". Retrieved 24 October 2020.

[17] "Voorstel Wet seksuele misdrijven" (PDF).

[18] "'Onmenselijk behandeld door gerechtshof'".

[19] ttps://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no96036376/

[20] [1]

[21] [2]

[22] [3]

[23] [4]

[24] [5]

[25] [6]

[26] [7]

[27] [8]

[28] [9]

[29] [10]

[30] [11]

[31] [12]

[32] [13]

[33] [14]

[34] [15]

[35] [16]

[36] [17]

[37] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/nyregion/nxivm-nancy-salzman-keith-raniere-charges.html

[38] ttps://www.hbo.com/the-vow

[39] ttps://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6731-Nxivm-lawsuit/2de597cdf78faec941b7/optimized/full.pdf

[40] ttps://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]