Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 18

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Rachael Smith

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

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

A BLP that does not meet any inclusion criteria, most importantly WP:GNG. She made three appearances for Perth Glory then seemingly retired. All coverage appears to be trivial mentions. [1] [2] Spiderone 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Is no longer listed at the club website, so no chance of her passing NFOOTBALL. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, no longer listed at the club website and fails WP:NFOOTY. jp×g 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable individual Spudlace (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Nika2020 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Keeping It Real Art Critics

Keeping It Real Art Critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable web series. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I did a little work on this article, but it needs more. I gauge it as notable, based on items like this, this, this and this. A search shows more results as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for your thoughts. Where do you think the article needs changed, ThatMontrealIP? Notability in the Netherlands is clear, I think, as the references testify. I chose to create an English article because most comments on youtube are in this language. I hope that's not a problem. (Bowsnehru (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
• Delete These do not seem like real art critics, but just a couple of politically right-wing-aligned people behaving nastily towards what they perceive as the leftist art establishment. It requires no art appreciation training to say things like so-so artist is hyped because of his/her racial minority and sexual orientation, or to hound some curator to explain why the person likes a piece to the point of reducing the person to tears.

A piece by Lars Benthin that lauds and cheerleads this sort of behavior, and calls on readers to let's follow these KIRAC guys is not objective reporting, but should be classed as op-ed, it falls far short of analysis from an art critic, and ThatMontrealIP shouldn't be listing it as if it is WP:RS.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I will do a detailed look at the references tomorrow. I did a WP:BEFORE but i'll go into more detail around that particular point. scope_creep^Talk 22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kiyoweap: a couple of politically right-wing-aligned people behaving nastily is pure opinion rather than a deletion argument based on policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be reviews. scope_creep^Talk 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The "This duo breaks through the 'kitschy and leftist artist world'.." to quote the op-ed.

So, presumably this duo perceive themselves the opposite of that label -- ergo "rightist".

As for policy, are the duo acknowledged by peers (other art critics)? That is the explicit criterion for academics and creators (WP:NART). And kudos from some opinion columnist does not qualify.--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap—what is "objective reporting" on art? You are saying the reporting of "these KIRAC guys...falls far short of analysis from an art critic". Do you think "analysis from an art critic" is "objective"? Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Alright, if it needs explaining, "objective reporting", on art, by a layman journalist, means the journalist withholds his own opinion, and reports on expert opinions.

An art critic's analysis being subjective is not at issue; if it is expert opinion it is allowable WP:RS.

Whereas a newspaper op-ed columnist's 2-cents on the matter is assumed not (as per WP:RSEDITORIAL).

It seems to me you think that even if it is an opinion column, if it accurately reports on certain facts on the subject then that is sufficient to establish notability. But I am arguing the hurdle is considerably higher than that for these people to be considered notable "art critics", which is the point you are missing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap—even without reading the language I think I can sense that the topic is reliably sourced. A headline in De Groene Amsterdammer under the heading "Kunst & Cultuur" reading "Keep it real" sounds like it might be a reliable source contributing to the notability of the subject. I could be mistaken but after looking at a few of the episodes it seems like they are talking about the international art world. There seem to be several such sources alluding to this "web series on YouTube and Vimeo exploring the international art world". Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. This discussion should not be about the use of the word 'art criticism' in the article. It should focus on the contested notability of the topic. With extensive coverage in de Volkskrant (link), De Groene Amsterdammer (link), NRC Handelsblad (link), Artnet (link), a substantial appearance on NPO Radio 1 (link), and over 650.000 views on youtube, I think notability is sufficiently supported. A search yields still more results. — Bowsnehru (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: As for the De Groene Amsterdammer piece in the "Kunst (Art) & Cultuur" section, you seem to be relying on a blind hunch based on the headline being "Keep it real". That slogan seems to be of general use, and not particular to the K.I.R Art Critics. If you bothered to grind the text through an mt app (as I would), you'd realize the first bulk of the article has little to do with KIRAC, but an entirely different film called Stranger in Paradise created by Guido Hendrikx which was shown in IDFA (film festival).

I'll concede that the Roos van der Lint is at least the art beat journalist for this paper, and I think one site described her as an art critic as well. What she says about the KIRAC film "Verontwaardiging in De Appel" is that it "was alternately sharp and bland, brutal and sometimes unreasonable".

So KIRAC's art criticism is one of compromised credibility in the estimation of this art editor/critic.

However, the current edit citing this article chooses to say the film is a "topic of controversy and the subject of praise", which is a pretty WP:POV reading of the tone of the actual source. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap Roos van der Lint wrote a long piece about an observed trend within the art world (“een stroom (current) van politiek incorrecte kunst”) and thought it fitting to include 800 words on KIRAC. This supports the case for the topic’s notability, which is what should be discussed here. (Superfluously, the piece is not referenced as an example of praise, but as a source for the latter of these sentences: “They suggest (KIRAC Ep.3) that democratic, modernistic tendencies in combination with neoliberal policies have created a generation of artists who use their work to cater for the ideological preferences of curators and collectors, thereby lacking sincerity and self-reflection. The first episodes discuss various examples of this dynamic and fit within the domain of art criticism.”) — Bowsnehru (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bowsnehru:, even though you now concede the article was about a "trend within the art world", you didn't explain this before, and it deceived Bus stop into thinking it was an article entirely about KIRAC.

Since the piece is about a "trend" perhaps the article should be about the whole trend, with KIRAC mentioned in a line or two within.

I would draw comparison to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. I don't think a youtuber involved in the toppling of a statue necessarily merits an article of his own even if he made the news.

The portion you quote from the Wiki article sounds like a press release, just mouth-piecing what KIRAC thinks they are achieving. To be WP:NPOV, it needs to reflect van der Lint's rather negative assessment e.g., how the work degenerates to worse quality with each episode. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap I said the piece covers KIRAC extensively, not exclusively, and I think those 800 words point in the direction of WP:N. Don't you agree that the piece is an example of significant coverage? Speaking more precisely, I think the piece is trying to address growing opposition towards (perceived) ideological pretension within the art world. At the moment this trend is probably not sufficiently defined for a Wikipedia article. (Also, I think Van der Lint is more ambiguous in her judgment of KIRAC than you make it seem: sound criticism ("met kennis van zaken") is undermined by populist rhetoric ("populistische retoriek"), but finally welcomed as a fresh perspective on utilitarian practices ("een frisse kijk op het nuttigheidsdenken").) But let's not forget that this is just one source and that there are others too. — Bowsnehru (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Bowsnehru I am perhaps being over-picky saying that "extensive" sounds like more than "significant", but most English-speakers would agree that is the tenor, and nuances become important when other parties base opinion on such short descriptions alone.

Obviously I don't agree it is "significant coverage" to the extent of a book-length history in the WP:GNG, and I'm judging it to be not significant enough.

I would remark that you should be adding what a writer like van der Lint states in a neutral way to the KIRAC page rather than here.

I can't comment on all the sources, because some are WP:PAYWALL.

But the 2 in English were both about an incident (invitation to KIRAC at an art academy, cancelled as art debate), and not significant coverage of their work. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is moved from some doubt present to an becoming an established article. I would close it as nomination withdrawn, but I guess we can wait until its closed by an admin. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap—I don't think I was "deceived". When I look at "KIRAC Ep.10 'The bad breath of Mondriaan Specialist Hans Janssen' (Van Gogh, Mondriaan)" and other episodes it is obvious to me that they are talking about art. They are touching upon subjects that I consider important such as the relation between abstract painting and representational painting. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, the fact is, you acted on a hunch on the D.G.A. article that bore the title "Keeping it Real" and assumed it was a full-length profile on KIRAC, when it was actually about the "Keeping it Real" trend/movement, with KIRAC only given only a secondary coverage, and a rather dismissive one at that.

The point you need to concede is that this source is no longer the same level of "significant coverage" (cf. WP:GNG) you had previously believed, based on false premise. And Bowsnehru listing it as "extensive coverage" was rather inflated and misleading.

I should hope you realize your "methinks" on how noteworthy you think KIRAC is, based on you watching their youtubes, holds no sway in the argument.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap—even if I "acted on a hunch" in reference to that source, I think there are other sources attesting to the substantiality of this group. Artnet refers to their "controversial analysis of the art world".[3] I guess I'm just not that critical of groups of people trying to make sense of the art world. If reliable sources recognize them I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. If on the other hand I felt they were a group of charlatans trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes, I would not lend my support to retaining an article on them on Wikipedia. In part I am judging legitimacy on watching videos—if the banter returns time and again to what I consider real art world concerns—then I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, your private opinion is of no consequence.

You are also wasting our time with your inability to correctly extract information from a source, even when written in English.

The "controversial analysis of the art world" is not attributed to KIRAC but to Bert Kreuk, the art collector who was their prospective art debate opponent at the art academy. --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment For something that is notable or potentially notable, the web series is not watched by a large number of folk. The highest rated episode has only 94k plays, which in any instance I would consider very low. It is a art series and not a lot of folk will watch it, but it very low and in the series as a whole it is tailed off. scope_creep^Talk 11:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

scope_creep It is easy to underestimate how high these figures are for a (European) art channel. For example, you are referring to an episode about a famous art dealer Stefan Simchowitz and no video featuring him has as many views on youtube. You could draw comparisons to other notable persons or events within the art world to show that viewer numbers are relative (Jon Rafman, Art Basel, if you want I can give more examples), and the conclusion would be that KIRAC has a relatively high number of viewers.

Notability also becomes clear when you look at the institutions that have invited KIRAC as art critics or to present their films, such as SABK Karlsruhe (link), Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, Gerrit Rietveld Academy, HFBK Hamburg, MACBA, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Van Abbemuseum, KABK. Note that the SABK announcement places KIRAC “among the best-known art critics in the Netherlands”.

Here you can find most press coverage KIRAC has received. Among others, I think the piece of university professor Thijs Lijster and the mentioned piece in the Volkskrant are clear examples of significant coverage. — Bowsnehru (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why they have to be watched by a lot of people. If they are recognized by commentators then we have an indication of notability. Supposing they go over everybody's heads? Most people are not not going to watch YouTube videos about art unless it is dumbed down or misleading. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keep rationales are disputed (or in one case, WP:ITSNOTABLE)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, Bowsnehru fails to provide proper context. What is happening is that Netherlands has its own version of Republicans in the United States who want to cut off public funding (from De Appel, etc.) because it doesn't suit their political ideology: the culture minister Halbe Zijlstra was mentioned as such a politician.

You can attract a lot of video-watchers in the United States who don't give jack squat about art if your message is that public funding being wasted on art centers that promote homosexual values or individuals, and that is the piece of schtick that KIRAC has resorted to.

Accordingly, the outspoken student Gerrit Rietveld Academy said KIRAC was unwelcome on his campus because they "don't deserve the attention".

If some people in the art world feel compelled to engage in some sort of dialogue (instead of stonewalling) when there is a looming politicized and demagoguerized threat of defunding like this. So any article should describe that situation and KIRAC as a player in that context, to a large extent, rather pretend these attention-grabbers earned respect purely on the merits of their critiques. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Black Kite for your time. I think there are now 4 users in favour of keeping the article and 1 user in favour of deletion, albeit with some hesitation from scope_creep. Arguments for keeping the article are mainly disputed by one user only, Kiyoweap, whose first contribution already revealed some personal bias against the topic. The user’s subjectivity showed again in his or her reluctance to accept this piece as an example of significant coverage, although it clearly is. In the latest contribution, Kiyoweap seems to impose a political condition on the notion of notability and draws an uninformed, intuitive conclusion. I am not sure further debate will yield clearer consensus, but maybe scope_creep can clarify his or her position, or Kiyoweap could state that notability is sufficiently supported and suggest at the same time that the article be expanded for the sake of neutrality. — Bowsnehru (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there has been sufficient sources presented during the Afd to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just preposterous for Bowsnehru to suggest political context is something irrelevant that I am unfairly imposing.

The very subheading of the Roos van der Lint piece he cites states "Politiek incorrecte kunst is (ubiquitous)" so it should be clear you can't completely divorce this article from the context of political climate.

Bowsnehru only partially quotes from van der Lint: "a fresh perspective on utilitarian practices ("een frisse kijk op het nuttigheidsdenken")" but what could this mean? I, using my cognitive intuition conclude this is about the mindset that publicly funded art should serves some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics.

And voilà, continue reading van der Lint and she says this is about "de worsteling van de kunstenaar om met al dan niet maatschappelijk geëngageerde kunst (the artist's struggle to justify the communal money received with art)".

So it is crystal clear this is a discussion in the context of political opinion as I said previously. Stop whining about it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap From the start I have indeed tried to divorce this discussion on the notability of KIRAC from the context of political debate (which clearly is a lot more contentious in the States than it is in Europe). This is the logical thing to do. So politics aside, forgetting even about the literal text of the article, do you judge KIRAC sufficiently notable to meet WP:N? Before you have done so I am not tempted to have a 'cognitively intuitive' debate to determine KIRAC’s position on the political spectrum. — Bowsnehru (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I am basically an inclusionist and usually inclined to vote keep, but not if the product of the effort is blatantly WP:PROMO.

I don't see how you can justify what you are doing as a "logical thing". Taking statements out of context is textbook WP:POV.

Also I'm not admitting to debating out of pure intuition. I clearly indicated that my hunch on the context of "utilitarianism" was borne out by what the author van der Lint said subsequently, so I only tabled the matter for debate after verifying it was citable to the source. So stop being snide.

On whether they are WP:N for their demagogic stunt, I already laid out the analogy an individuals who toppled a Jefferson Davies statue might get repeated coverage in the press with that public-attention grabbing stunt, but may not deserve an independent article on their own. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is not blatantly promotional. You can make suggestions to expand the article for the sake of neutrality, but not before you have conceded that the topic is notable. On this point, however, you are not expressing yourself clearly.

I am not sure what you mean by “demagogic stunt”. Either you refer to the decision of the Rietveld to withdraw KIRAC’s invitation to the academy, or you are reducing the totality of KIRAC content to demagoguery. In the first case you would be avoiding my question on notability, because you limit your response only to sources covering the upheaval. In the second case you would be making a statement which is disputed by the sources you avoid in the first case.

As it happens, I just came across this book by searching for “Keeping it real art critics” in google books. I don't read Italian well, but demagoguery "poco adatto al click-bait" is surely unworthy of its name. In addition to all sources mentioned I think it is yet another sign of the topic’s notability. — Bowsnehru (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap—you write "I, using my cognitive intuition conclude this is about the mindset that publicly funded art should serves some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics." I would hazard a guess that publicly funded art is never expected to serve some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics. We don't weed out and discard parts of sources that may support notability just because we may disagree with a particular implication within that reliable source. Nobody even knows what art is, much less what purposes it should serve. Is there a satisfactory definition of art? There are only definitions we support and definitions we reject. You say "So it is crystal clear this is a discussion in the context of political opinion". So what? We take support for notability wherever we can find it. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bowsnehru, your ridiculousness is reaching new heights with your suggestion that I, who don't think the article is a keeper should be the one to contribute the labor to fix it so it justifies notability. This is clearly your work, or others who wish to keep it.

If van der Lint: “sound criticism ("met kennis van zaken") is undermined by populist rhetoric ("populistische retoriek")” that should be the gist that should go into the article, not “They suggest (KIRAC Ep.3) that democratic, modernistic tendencies in combination with neoliberal policies have created a generation of artists who use their work to cater for the ideological preferences of curators and collectors” which the page is citing to van der Lint.

And when van der Lint says "populist rhetoric", isn't that practically synonymous with "demagoguery" ="Rhetoric that appeals to the prejudices of the people"? Why are you baffled by my choice of word here? --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Having said that they are "trying to make sense of the art world", if I can quote myself, and after having looked at a couple more KIRAC videos, I would have to say that they are only "trying to make sense of the art world". There is scarcely more than a perfunctory effort to make sense of art itself. In this sense these are superficial videos. But I suppose they can be thought-provoking. And if they are reliably-sourced to a sufficient extent to meet notability requirements, then I suppose they make a worthy addition to our panoply of articles on art-related subjects. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap You call me ridiculous and said I was whining before, so I don’t think I owe you a reply, but I have made the suggested change to the article (which is not mine and open to everyone to edit). The change doesn’t “justify notability” and when you use these words, it just tells me that you have a wrong understanding of the word “notability”. The notability of a topic does not depend on the wording of the corresponding Wikipedia article. As it stands, you continue to fail to give a non-evasive answer to my question of November 20th, 20h22, i.e. an answer that takes into account all sources mentioned above. — Bowsnehru (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The bylaw you lay down upon me that "You can make suggestions to expand the article for the sake of neutrality, but not before you have conceded that the topic is notable" is patently ridiculous. There's no buts about it.

Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (people), I am sticking to the opinion of that KIRAC doesn't meet WP:GNG "significant" coverage. So you need to persuade me that KIRAC fulfills the additional criteria for notability under WP:CREATIVE.

If you are claiming the articles you've listed are shows KIRAC to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, then demonstrate it to us by adding such content into the KIRAC article, rather than write it here, is what I am suggesting.

This "evasive" charge you are now laying against me, also very disingenuous. I already indicated I'm not going out of my way to access the WP:PAYWALL Dutch papers, or the Italian book not previewable to me.

Obviously I don't think it is worth might time to read up every article you bring up on figures I don't consider to meet notability. So it makes sense that either you show it to me specifically or I don't believe you.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiyoweap It just seems absurd to me to discuss the text of the article before we have agreed that an article on the topic should actually exist. And I think that this discussion page is the right place to have that discussion on existence (i.e.: on notability), whether you find that ridiculous or not. You don't have to read all the sources I bring up in this context, a quick look normally suffices to see if the topic is covered significantly or not.

The Italian book contains over a page on a particular KIRAC episode and is written by Elisa Cuter, who holds an academic position at the Konrad Wolf Film University. This is unlikely to happen to a non-notable web series. As for the sources behind a paywall, you seem to have missed my comment of November 16th. (I expanded the article again using one of these sources). — Bowsnehru (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The point is, Bowsnehru, if you merely name a source that I can't access, and you assure me there is content in it that proves KIRAC's notability, I am not inclined to believe you, due to your misrepresentations and miscontextualizations of the sources which I already explained.

Now, you characterize this Italian author as an "academic", but she is still just a graduate student/Ph.D. candidate. So this is not really clearly authority enough whatever she might say.

It is not ridiculous for me to insist that you explicitly write out what it is that your sources say. Your methodology of saying van der Lint is an art critic and she says some stuff amounting to so many words, or the film school student devoting 1 page in a book she was able to publish, that doe not work for me.

If you don't want to delineate that evidence through editing the article, that's fine. You can do it here, and use {{tref}} or whatever.

But stop using it as some excuse for not supplying that evidence, and expect me to accept your assurance that it proves notability. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

1 Macquarie Place

1 Macquarie Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mild Keep Has an Emporis listing, seems to have some notability, but not much is used to source the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Emporis is hugely indiscriminate and from what I can tell lists every building it can get stats on. I can't see either it or skyscraper.com as conferring notability in their listings. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong keep - This is a prominent building in Sydney on the waterfront in Circular Quay that clearly meets GNG. The history of its development was a significant news item during the 60s, 70s and 80s (due to its waterfront location) - it attracted significant controversy about its construction, and the building was empty for a long period of time even after construction. There will be plenty of news coverage about the construction of the tower from the media at the time (which you won't find by doing a Google search, @TimothyBlue: - you need to look a bit harder than that). Has its own Emporis page [4]. To give you an idea of the more recent significant coverage it has received, only in July this year it received independent coverage about being the first touch-free building in Australia (examples from 2 different media companies - [5], [6]). Deus et lex (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Every notable building has an Emporis listing. What's important is that this has significant coverage back to the 1980s and even dating back to the 1970s. I've added a few sources to the article - they're not great, but a building that had the highest rents in a major world city should definitely have received WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, and that's the case here. (Search for Gateway Plaza for the older articles.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - a huge skyscraper with RS? Sign me up for this big boy. jp×g 12:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm a bit surprised that sources are so hard to find for this one but I reckon there's about enough to demonstrate GNG Spiderone 11:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - as I mentioned above, most sources are likely to be offline as the ones around the construction controversies pre-date the internet! Deus et lex (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Punk Planet

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

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

Non-notable publication, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Respected, long-running publication covered by many RS. Caro7200 (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Where are the reliable sources exactly? The article has none and does not in any way demonstrate notability. If you have reliable sources that establish notability, please provide them. Mansheimer (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure--and, of course, it is no more an editor's responsibility to provide sources than it is for you to do a BEFORE. To one degree or another: The A.V. Club, Utne Reader, Chicago Tribune, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Reader, Phoenix New Times, Village Voice, Global Punk: Resistance and Rebellion in Everyday Life (book), DIY Punk as Education: From Mis-education to Educative Healing (book), The Nation, Publishers Weekly, Tiny Mix Tapes, MTV, Washington Post. Caro7200 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do these sources provide significant coverage of the subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 22:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - As User:Caro7200 points out there appear to be several reliable sources addressing, if nothing else, the decision to shut down this publication which, to me, demonstrates notability. That said, I do think the article needs improvement given its near complete lack of sources. Here are a few potential sources I found in a quick search that could be added to the article:

• • https://www.avclub.com/why-punk-planets-demise-matters-1798211753
  • https://www.punknews.org/article/24230/punk-planet-1994-2007
  • https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/07/punk-planet-magazine-dead-water/
  • https://www.utne.com/community/afondfarewelltopunkplanet

DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: I added three references to the article: SPIN Magazine's April 1996 review of the zine, a section in the book Global Punk: Resistance and Rebellion in Everyday Life (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016) and a published collection of Punk Planet interviews, We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet - The Collected Interviews (Akashic Books, 2001). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: per WP:Hey on the article and other sources provided. I didn't research them but the chicagotribune.com article seems sufficient. Otr500 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comments: Thanks to those providing sources. Regarding the "responsibility" mentioned above: Please see WP:Burden, and when the name of a living person (such as here) is involve (biography, related, or just an article with a name drop of someone living), see WP:BLPSOURCES. While I see arguments all the time about performing a WP:BEFORE, please note that not only can some searches be location biased it can be search engine biased, and Zines doesn't appear to attract a lot of mainstream media attention. At any rate, the criteria in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives (B. 2 and D. 1 and 2) describes the "minimum search" criteria and what to do if nothing is found or if something is found but is deemed insufficient. However, there is no mandate or any community consensus that an editor state "I have performed a "BEFORE" just that there be "basic due diligence" which is often subjective. Otr500 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

With respect to both you and the nominator, I disagree. "Non-notable publication, no reliable secondary sources" is so vague that it could very well just be the nominator's personal opinion--aside from the fact that it wasn't even "true" to begin with. AGF, but this nomination was also one of about a dozen by the nominator that appeared in rapid succession. Caro7200 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply (Caro7200): I agree the Nom was possibly arbitrary (I now see multiple AFD listings in the same genre that I had not noticed so thanks) and a WP:BEFORE, in light of the evidence, was likely not performed or possibly with some bias, especially when placing a notability tag then bringing to AFD on the same day.

When an article is listed there is typically 7 days unless extended (and it was) so not a lot of time for research. I saw the Nom, and that you added some names as sources, but DocFreeman24 added verifiable sources. When I performed a search it revealed one reliable source, and I saw Toughpigs actually added some to the article. They are not close to great, one even WP:primary, but added up there was enough to lead me to consider the subject notable and that a "Hey" was certainly due. An issue that prevented me from echoing a cry of foul was that your statement was not replied to by the Nom, so I had no way of knowing if a "BEFORE" was actually performed (and still don't), but procedures to contest the listing were not initiated. By the time of my involvement the subject was moot but concerns of notability (biased or not) were evident and I believed now resolved.

Notability could have been addressed sometimes after 2004 but maintenance often lags real time by an enormous amount. Some espouse that a "presumption of notability" is all that is required and that may suffice as long as notability is not contested. Some espouse that sourcing requirements are not concrete (or even needed) and that AFD is not for cleanup. All I know is that a subject appeared to have dubious notability and that seems to have been shown not to be the case. For all the reasons why we should scream of the injustice of possibly inappropriate AFD listings, article thus Wikipedia improvements can be the result. We have WP:IAR when Wikipedia improvements result and I lean to believe this is applicable for article inclusion as well as exclusion, so I would not be one to argue against this. Otr500 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per notability demonstrated with the sources that have been added since nomination. jp×g 12:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bob Adams (politician)

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

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

Doesn't look like a WP:NPOL or WP:GNG pass here, to me. Losing a state-level legislature campaign doesn't meet WP:NPOL, nor does his PAC work or being a former aide to Pat Buchanan. I may be mistaken, but I don't think being part of the Council for National Policy makes him notable. The two sources are an affiliated source and a short directory listing in a group he is a member of. Only two sentences there, in relation to a PAC he started. This is pretty much just an interview. This is apparently about a different Bob Adams (WP article subject is about a WV politician, source is about a SC politician). In my opinion, the content here more belongs in an article about his PAC, not him, as its more about the PAC. It's a bit borderline, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think he's notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Doesn't appear to meet GNG either; article is largely an unsourced resume. His organization League of American Voters doesn't appear to be notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Being married to the niece of an ambassador? Other than this, he's just an employee for politicians. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Reads more like a promotional blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable losing candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as failed candidate and political operative. Bkissin (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - run of the mill political operative; no notable accomplishments; you win some and lose some. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. I redirected the PAC that formerly employed him as its only employee, to Dick Morris, because it appears to be Morris's alter ego. See also WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office, but nothing else here is either "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article, or well-sourced enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete however close he came to winning he still lost a state legislative race and that means he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Alliance for Democracy and Freedom

Alliance for Democracy and Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication that this is a notable political party. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the subject. ... discospinster _talk 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or re-direct to Mike Hookem. Maybe the party will be more notable in the future, but for now, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources about them. (There are some primary sources: their own website, a letter in a local newspaper). I don't think we need a complete deletion: we can re-direct to their one famous member, former MEP Mike Hookem. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Campaign advertisement that is also currently unsourced! (Though that may have been Bondegezou doing cleanup.) Would probably be a G11 candidate if it wasn't already in AfD. Bkissin (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've not removed any sourcing. It's only ever had one source, the party's own website. Bondegezou (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete No third party coverage in reliable sources beyond a few appearances in lists. Maybe too soon, so nothing to stop it being recreated once notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing to suggest notability at present. If this were to change in the future then there might be grounds for an article, but not at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Youth Excellence Awards

Youth Excellence Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable award in Ghana established in 2018, most of the references for this award are gossip news websites. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bidenism

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

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

No establishment of notability, or that this is even an actual ideology. The 1st citation doesn't define Bidenism and instead just uses it as a synonym for his presidency. The 2nd citation isn't even about his political style at all and is instead about his gaffes.

I think this article is bordering on WP:CRYSTAL as we don't even know if his ideology will be defined in such a way -- instead this looks more like a reaction to the Trumpism article. — Czello 19:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Czello 19:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I concur. At this time it's CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON. I can't find anything that would establish this as notable. Also borderline WP:Neologism. If it picks up more steam and can establish itself as notable to pass our guidelines...I'm all ears - for now, it doesn't even merit a mention in the Joe Biden or Biden administration related articles, IMHO. Missvain (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — I concur with both nom & Missvain. This is definitely a WP:TOOSOON scenario. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — Premature, at best. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a term discussed at length in reliable sources; a WP:NEOLOGISM as of now. Just as likely refer to a malapropism as to a political ideology (neither of which usages meet GNG at the moment). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The stub is close to being a tautology, as it doesn't have any description of this alleged ideology. The two sources are about different topics, one is just about his presidency, and the other is about gaffes, similar to Bushism. This could conceivably be rewritten as an article similar to Bushism if this can be well sourced, but as it stands, the article provides no useful information. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - barely any mentions of the term in RS, and the very few that exist are speculating over what Bidenism may turn out to be. TOOSOON, CRYSTAL and NEO, as others have points out, but from a look at the sources I doubt it would pass GNG anyway. Jr8825 • Talk 22:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, I more agree with WP:NEOLOGISM. Alex-h (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. It probably will be an article in four years, but it is premature now.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a single statement in this article is factual; in fact the entire article is a fabrication and WP:POINT, simply copied from Trumpism which is something different altogether. How can Biden even "keep power" when he is not yet even president and has never attempted any coup? --Tataral (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment IMO, it is sad that Wikipedia is going to allow an article that talks about Trumpism, but won't allow Bidenism. From the amount of bias I have seen (Not just this, but other places as well), it sorta looks like Wikipedia leans more to the left (liberal) side of a bias spectrum. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If Bidenism had been defined and commented on, then it might be a potential article. Right now there is no information in the article about anything that may be defined as Bidenism, unless you're talking about his semi-joking statements, which are more similar to Bushism than Trumpism. If you think you can write an article about Bidenism from reliable sources, then feel free to make a draft. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Elijahandskip: Is that a joke comment? The reason I nominated this for deletion is because there's no indication that Bidenism is even A Thing. Contrast this article to the Trumpism article -- they're not remotely comparable. — Czello 07:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this has nothing to do with politics (as in right vs left) and it's offensive that someone would even suggest it, especially as someone who gives equal time to writing and editing about politicians across all political spectrums. Kind of regretting I commented on this thread - I could speedy delete it but sadly I can't now! Missvain (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It was more of a joke comment, but the part about Wikipedia (as a whole) moving more to a liberal/left stance wasn't a joke. I have had tons of discussions in the past 2 months over that issue. The comment was just about this article. Also, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NEOLOGISM. Spudlace (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Goldblatt

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

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

Tagged in 2016, has not been improved, clearly a CV based article with notability issues. Acousmana (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I do not think there is enough here to meet notability requirments. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Carol Berz

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to make her more special than the norm. As always, city councillors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- to make it in the door, a city councillor must either (a) serve in a city that is externally recognized as having global city status, or (b) show a range of nationalizing coverage to demonstrate that they're much more prominent than most other city councillors. But there are just five footnotes here, of which two are primary source "staff" profiles which are not support for notability, and the other three are just routine local election coverage in Chattanooga's local media, which is not enough to demonstrate that she's special since every city councillor can always show three hits of "Councillor wins ward" or "councillor announces campaign for ward" in their own local media. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE. ~Cupper (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete city council women in a city this size are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:N.Mayoticks (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, limited coverage in local news, no national press Spudlace (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the book is notable. Discussion about changing book notability guidelines can take place elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements
• Articles for deletion/Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements (2nd nomination)

Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Unsourced since 2005 in spite of a very cursory deletion discussion in 2007 in which no further evidence was provided. Book itself appears to have been produced by a non-notable publisher/imprint and to have run only to one edition. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes the (rather low) threshold for book notability per the following reviews: JSTOR 40404159, doi:10.2307/2697534, doi:10.1353/imp.2005.0027, ProQuest 213179863, ProQuest 196824835. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, it's still harder to pass than you'd think. On average the typical book needs to have about 3-5 good sources to establish notability. Most books, especially academic and scholarly ones, are unlikely to have this level of coverage. I know that the rules say 2, but they would have to be reviews in very major publications to really make the average editor see that as enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that WP:NBOOKS is only a SNG and is not a substitute for WP:GNG ("Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article.") There is a clear lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    Do you really expect a book to have consistent coverage over time? Books get reviews when they're published, and then they are cited afterwards; they don't appear in newspapers every couple months, like notable people often do. This book has 200+ cites on Scholar, indicating sustained scholarly attention. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• • • AleatoryPonderings I don't think it's unreasonable in principle. There are plenty of scholarly books, even articles, which become notable in their own right because of the effect they have on particular areas of debate ("The Imperialism of Free Trade" and Orientalism (book) are two random examples that come to mind). This is a book which has not even gone to a second edition and does not appear to have had a notable impact. I have recently written two reviews myself for peer-reviewed journals notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles and can tell you from personal experience that the motivation to write a review usually has more to do with a free copy being presented to the journal by the publisher rather than its own worthiness. Besides, WP:SUSTAINED is pretty unequivocal. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

      Brigade Piron, I stand by my original assessment. I have offered two objective indicators of notability: five reviews and a large number of citations. You and Peterkingiron have offered vague speculations about the reviewers' motivations, and have not cast doubt on any of the reviews in particular. I can say from my own personal experience looking for reviews to establish notability of books that finding five reviews in notable journals, even for an academic book, is actually quite unusual, so my own anecdotal evidence weighs in favour of notability.

      Moreover, WP:SUSTAINED is both (1) an explanatory supplement to GNG (which I have demonstrated by showing significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources); and (2) quite equivocal—it says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability (emphasis added). I hang my hat on the reviews and the citations. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd also add to this that WP:SUSTAINED has a very limited scope, dealing only with events, people involved in events, and other topics in relation to which WP:NOTNEWS might apply (and, in passing, companies). SUSTAINED is not saying that sustained coverage is required for notability in all instances, it's summarising the other guidelines we have which require sustained coverage in particular contexts. If there was a consensus that SUSTAINED applied in any way to books one would expect it to be mentioned somewhere in WP:BK. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• • • • AleatoryPonderings, I don't deny at all that reviews are a factor to consider. However, we also need to accept that there has been a total absence of any coverage of the book since then. As noted above, it never even made it into a second edition. The number of citations is, with respect, entirely irrelevant because they can just as well be citing facts from the book as discussing it and so can hardly count as address[ing] the topic directly and in detail as required in WP:GNG. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Very dubious -- The book did get several reviews, but these are likely to arise as part of the publisher's marketing. Google scholar records 202 citations. However the book provided a look from its time in 2001 towards the future as to how Russian politics might develop. I do not know the book, but guess that (apart from its new analysis as to what fascism is) it will be somewhat dated. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Reviews count towards notability as long as they are from a reliable source and are reasonably in-depth. Saying that reviews shouldn't count towards notability is honestly a fairly slippery slope. There are thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of non-book articles that are reliant upon reviews to establish notability. By proclaiming reviews to be unusable to establish notability we throw the notability of all of these other articles into question as well. This is not something that should be approached lightly.

Most of these outlets - even the ones that seemingly review everything - are actually pretty selective. As someone who has worked on and created multiple book and author articles, only a very small portion actually gain any sort of reviews. Academic and scholarly outlets are particularly selective, as there are only a limited amount of outlets that fit a book's topic and would have the space in the given issue to review a work. I've seen books by notable academics and put out by notable publishers get zero reviews from the scholarly/academic world. It doesn't mean that the books or authors are wrong or bad, just that there were too many books and too few outlets willing to review them. Basically, if an outlet only publishes quarterly and can only review 10-15 books out of the 100 that were published in their field each quarter, well... it means that on average 85-90 of those books won't be reviewed. Depending on the field, the number of books is probably far larger. Now if we extend this beyond the academic and scholarly world, the number of outlets willing to review and books for review go up, but there will still be an astronomic amount of books that will never get reviewed - even if we only limit it to those put out through mainstream publishers like Penguin and HarperCollins.

The other issue that can come up if we were to see reviews as unusable or routine is that it could have a detrimental impact on our coverage of women and minority authors and works. Things have gotten better, but it's still pretty common for a minority author to fly solidly under the radar as far as non-review coverage goes but still gain reviews from major RS outlets. This is also the case in other non-book areas as well.

I do think that there's an argument to be made for increasing the amount of reviews needed to establish notability (increasing it to 3 reviews would likely halve the amount of books and authors that gain articles each year) but I think a more important discussion needs to be made about which review outlets should or shouldn't be seen as reliable sources, by which I mean that individual sources are discussed and either deemed reliable and in-depth or not. We can't judge all of the sources by the same standard, as brevity in say, an academic and scholarly source is not the same as brevity in a trade publication like Publisher's Weekly. An academic review has the capability to be in-depth with just a handful of sentences whereas PW's reviews are weak water with the same amount. This is not a discussion to be had in an AfD and eliminating reviews entirely as a source of notability would just be shooting ourselves in the foot. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• You misunderstand my argument. Reviews are clearly relevant but are not sufficient in their own right. Also, I think you are way too kind about the reviewing processes. There are a huge number of specialist peer-review journals around. Literally every book published by any university press - there will be literally thousands each year - will be reviewed on multiple occasions and will not go on to make an objectively Wikipedia-worthy contribution to a particular field. In any case, we can deal with particular academics far better by addressing their (individually non-notable) works on a (notable) biography page which can deal with the subject more sensibly. The argument that we should have low notability standards to favour minority writers (on no evidence, I would add) is, frankly, bizarre are clearly not relevant to this particular AfD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• What do you propose that book articles should base notability on? Non-review coverage? If so, then the vast majority of books will not pass, as they almost never gain the coverage that a mainstream film or person would. That would pretty much limit us to the authors who do gain this coverage, which are predominantly white and male. I mean, people of color already have a hard enough time getting published to begin with, so it's not surprising that they have issues gaining coverage of any type, even reviews. Women have similar issues with gaining coverage. As far as peer-review journals go, there are still far fewer of them than there are books needing review and only a portion of each journal entry will focus on book reviews, assuming that they have a review section at all. Not all do.

Also, if we argue that book reviews aren't enough on their own to establish notability then we're basically arguing that they cannot be used to establish notability. No one is arguing that a single review would be inadequate to establish notability, however multiple reviews can establish this. Either reviews count towards notability or they don't. We can't give them "half notability". They're not like say, awards where we can point towards large awards like the Nobel Prize or the Hugo and say that those are major awards that can establish notability on that basis alone, whereas an award from a notable but relatively minor festival would only count towards notability without giving notability for that alone. There's a huge difference between major award granting institutions and news outlets.

My point is this - reviews are a necessary way of proving notability for books because books typically do not gain the coverage or in the same way that other types of media would. While yes, I do think that the number of reviews required to establish notability could be a tick higher AND I think that we need to more firmly establish what outlets are usable, I think that eliminating them as notability granting would just cause irreparable harm to both Wikipedia's coverage of books and women/minorities.

However this is a moot point in a deletion discussion. This is not the avenue to argue that reviews alone cannot establish notability - you need to argue that at the notability guidelines page for books and to be honest, I don't think that such a measure would pass. You'd be better off trying to lobby for specific sources to be seen as unusable for notability granting purposes than you would for a measure that would effectively remove them as notability granting sources. As it stands this book meets notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also, Routledge is far from a non-notable publisher! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, Routledge republished a second edition in 2015. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that's true. It seems to have issued a reprint, not a second edition. And, frankly, Routledge is a publisher which produces some highly notable works but also a huge number of very specialist studies with tiny print runs. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• The publisher page itself lists it as a second edition and it's printed on the cover. We have to go by what information the publisher has released, hence as far as we know it's a second edition. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• I also wanted to point out that while outlets such as Routledge do put out large amounts of work, this just hammers home my point earlier that only a small fraction of this work actually receive reviews. As such, if only a small fraction receive coverage then reviews shouldn't be seen as routine coverage. Routine means that it's extremely common.

As far as the publisher part goes, I wasn't making that point to establish notability, but rather to show that there was a general lack of WP:BEFORE done here. If a search was done and improvement was attempted, then it would have been fairly easy to discover that Routledge put out a second edition in 2015. They also would have discovered that a fairly well respected and notable scholar in the field (Andreas Umland) called the work pioneering and while Google Scholar isn't a reliable source, it's still being cited even in 2020 and 2019. It could probably be seen as dated, but the point is that it's still seen as important enough to bring up even if the person were to bring it up to showcase its shortcomings.

Finally, I must note that the reviews were published between the years of 2001-2005, which goes against the argument that they were all put out after its initial publication. This isn't super common, although it is a bit more common in academic/scholarly outlets than it would be for popular press. This shows a depth of coverage as far as time goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BK, has been clearly shown to exist. The nominator's rationale is based on an argument about what they think the latter guideline ought to say, rather than what it actually says. Their repeated claim that no second edition was published appears to be simply false. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Reviews in Europe-Asia Studies, Slavic Review, Science & Society, Journal of Peace Research (plus others) are WP:SIGCOV from respected academic journals. One review could be a outlier, but all four of these plus others is strong evidence of notability. M. E. Sharpe is a reputable academic publisher as evidenced by it being purchased by Routledge.   // Timothy :: talk  11:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Improvements made by AleatoryPonderings show this book is notable Spudlace (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nom & allowing for article to be substantially improved by article creator. Furthermore, their might be a possible COMMONNAME error & article may be moved to COMMONNAME after a discussion with the article creator. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ray Coppinger

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

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

Subject of article is a professor but does not satisfy WP:NPROF criteria reserved for academics. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Ray Coppinger is indeed notable. He and his wife were subject to an extensive article about their life and work in The NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/science/the-world-is-full-of-dogswithout-collars.html Thriley (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The article needs more sourcing, but Coppinger plausibly meets the first criteria of The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. based on
  • "The Coppingers are prominent figures in the canine science world"
  • "The Coppingers have been major figures in canine science for decades."
  • "Raymond Coppinger, a founding professor of Hampshire College and noted canine science researcher"

• Keep per above. I think I made a mistake in titling the article. Perhaps I should have used "Raymond Coppinger" instead of "Ray Coppinger"? I imagine more of his academic research is under Raymond. Thriley (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus that this article should be removed. I would suggest a wider RFC or similar discussion around the notability requirements for tiny places. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oriole, Kentucky

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

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

Does not look to meet WP:GEOLAND. Not mentioned in Rennick's Hopkins County guide, and the only mentions of Oriole in his index are a Locale (geography) and a mine. Locales do not pass GEOLAND, as by definition, locales are not places with permanent human population. Topograhpic maps show two or three buildings next to a railroad spur going to a mine. Newspapers.com hits are for names and the Baltimore Orioles. Google books hits are for birds and a hit for some form of railroad feature at Oriole. It was apparently mentioned in a '70s rock song, but the RS haven't given it any significant coverage over that. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I looked at pre-1953 newspaper references to cut down on the baseball articles, and I actually found a number of references to the Oriole mine, but all of them explicitly called it a mine; none of them even mentioned a community or a company town by the same name. Based on the evidence we have I'd guess this is another case of GNIS mislabeling a mine as a community. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: Is an unincorporated area a legally recognized place? If yes then it meets GEOLAND. If not, then it does not. The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Legally recognized" might be taken to mean that an unincorporated place, its boundaries and government undefined, would fail such a test. In practice we have not been able to agree on what constitutes legal recognition. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, about the alternate name of "Pleasant View Lake" in the article (and GNIS), the topos clearly show Pleasant View Lake as a nearby lake. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• delete The topos are something of a mess, but between them and aerial photography it seems clear that Oriole was the name of the rail junction. In any case there's no evidence in any era of a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure about this. I see a lot of sources calling this a "populated place" according to the USGS (e.g., see here, here, here). Checking the GNIS data for Kentucky I also see this listing:

"508756|Oriole|Populated Place|KY|21|Hopkins|107|371752N|0873413W|37.297823|-87.5702798|||||121|397|Madisonville West|09/20/1979|"

So, it's not simply a "locale" but instead a populated place with some level of recognition and thus a keep for WP:GEOLAND. I could also see a merge to Madisonville as it appears to be part of it instead of deletion. I'm not going to simply trust eye-balling of current maps as conclusive that the place was never populated if the USGS say otherwise. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP: - The GNIS data also called the thing deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky a "populated place", when every other source called it a pond, so I'm not sure that a claim of a GNIS "populated place" is necessarily an indication of a GEOLAND pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion to determine if the USGS data does demonstrate the requirements of WP:GEOLAND would help in forming a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 13:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral. This location appears to have been a mine. The GNIS cites Rennick as it's source of information, but Rennick does not identify the location as a community. As seen in recent Deletion discussions where the GNIS has claimed that fords [7], a fish pond [8] and a rail switches [9] to be unincorporated communities the source of the data needs to be checked to see that it matches up to what is claimed.

It appears that the "fact" that the song 'All the Way from Memphis' refers to oriole Kentucky has actually come from Wikipedia itself. The source given in the main article to cite this fact does not refer to Oriole, Kentucky, simply 'another state' [10]. At various times the article has claimed that the song refers to 'the orioles' [11], Baltimore [12], Oriole, Kentucky [13] and "Oriole" (Baltimore) [14]. The current claim about the song referring to Oriole, Kentucky was inserted in an unsourced IP edit 3 years ago [15]. The songfacts source added to the article is user generated content and was only written a couple of months ago, so it's likely that claim came from Wikipedia.

The sources added by FOARP do seem to suggest that this place may have a claim to notability as a mine, but I'm not quite sure whether there's enough in depth coverage of the place. If it is kept the article should be trimmed of the unverifiable claims about there being a community there. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've found sources mentioning the song going back to 2010 (EDIT: 2009 actually), so I'm not sure Wiki is the ultimate source. FOARP (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP: The claim that the song specifically refers to Oriole, Kentucky was first inserted in an unsourced IP edit in September 2008 [16]. It was flagged as unsourced in 2009 by a user who noted that the spelling in the lyrics was different from the spelling of the town name [17]. Apart from a few back and forth edits about whether the song was referring to Oriole, Kentucky or Baltimore the statement sat in the article unsourced until April 2018 when the source that doesn't really support the statement that the song is specifically about Kentucky was added [18]. The earliest references I can find that state the song is specifically referring to a location in Kentucky are from October 2008, about a month after the statement was added to the article [19], I've been unable to locate anything that predates the addition of the statement to Wikipedia. It may very well be correct and someone with better source finding skills may be able to turn up something that predates September 2008, but at the moment it looks to me like a lot of circular referencing. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You'd hope that, as a prominent music journalist - maybe the UK's most prominent at the moment? - John Harris would be an RS for this kind of information. Unfortunately none of the big autobiographies/histories/diaries of Mott the Hoople and its members are online to add a back-up source - most I can see is general guides to Glam Rock that state that the song was based on "something that happened" to their guitarist. Based simply on Harris being the source I'd lean towards it being true. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

PS - regarding the mine, this is the subject of a number of page-length articles on mining safety in various contemporary journals, so that angle is worth considering as well. I've got to say this is an interesting case as it means we've got to look at Glam Rock on the one hand and mining on the other! FOARP (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: despite further discussion, there is still not a clear consensus yet, would benefit from an additional week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Whether it's a mine or a community, it appears to have enough couverage to meet the GNG bar, particularly the articles on mining safety. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Run-of-the-mill mine does not have significant coverage about itself or a supposed community. Sources are not specifically about this site, being a strike covering mines in several counties and reports on routine incidents and output at all mines. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The mine safety articles are page-length articles in state/national level journals - not trivial mentions or run-of-the-mill. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: An informative and well-referenced encyclopedia article containing source-supported details.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: At the time of creation, this article was definitely a dog, but as of right now, there have been substantial improvements (in content as well as in referencing) -- I recommend that previous delete !voters go back over the article and reconsider. The section on the mine is very well-referenced, and the various things that happened there -- its establishment, the walkouts, the accidents, the redevelopment -- are notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. jp×g 20:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Rename to Oriole mine: Please see comments below. Otr500 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Comments

While there is a continual need to expand Wikipedia there needs to be limits to including trivial or not accurate information just because it is on a list. A look at information from the "ISPRS Technical Commission" might help.

• Populated place: Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.
• Locale: Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams but does include battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill.

If there is such indecision or lack of consensus then maybe a RFC would help give clarification. Accepting the listing of a mudhole because it is on a GNIS list (as a sole authority for notability), as some indication of inherent notability, borders on insanity. All of our current accepted practices for inclusion include sourcing criteria for verification. Apparent historical information about a place should not be used to classify such a place as "populated" (or once populated) when there is no other evidence (sourcing) to indicate such a place exists or existed as named. Two or three houses do not constitute a "community" or "populated place", just because they are in close proximity, if there is not supporting current or historical sourcing.

This is actually not complicated as all one needs to do is look at the sources on the article that are predominantly about coal, coal mining and the "ORIOLE MINE" not a town or community. PS, the song sourcing should go away unless there is actual evidence it is about the subject. Otr500 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, You are absolutely right. There's not a single source that indicates this is a community, and the closure here was preposterous. I've edited the article to reflect that. The mine is still just one of hundreds that has operated in the state and shows no particular notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Heal (company)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Heal (corporation)

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

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS, WP:ORGCRIT. Non-notable startup. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There are some sources from larger reliable publishers but those references invariably contain no Independent Content and therefore fail 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⁺⁺ 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• This should get even more discussion since it has had an AFD discussion in 2019 also. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — organization doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — Doesn't satisfy Wikipedia basic guidelines. Mayoticks (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per User:HighKing Spudlace (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Marcia Wilbur

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

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

Out of the listed references:

• [2], [8], [13], [15], [16], [17] do not mention the person in the article at all

• [1], [5], [7], [9], [14], [18] are primary sources by the person in the article and they don't appear to be notable (WP:BASIC, WP:BLPSELFPUB)

• [3], [4], [6], [10] are about two books that the person in the article wrote about a legal subject. No secondary sources can be found that mention them (WP:PRIMARY, WP:USEBYOTHERS) and the author does not appear to have a law degree (WP:BOOKCRIT, WP:PROMOTION)

• [11] is about an open-source project supposed to be lead by the person in the article. The website does not work, the Github repository has been emptied, the Gitlab repository has 27 commits, of which none seem to be about coding (only small documentation changes), last updated more than a year ago. The person in the article appears as the author of 2 commits only. (WP:INHERENTWEB)

About the article:

• Almost all of it appears to be a collection of unimportant, non-notable information about the person in the article (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
• It is about a living person and lists personal details without sources, both at the infobox and the article itself (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:VERIFY)

About the person listed in the article:

• I believe that "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" (WP:OVERCOME) and the article of the subject is not worth an article in Wikipedia. Comagfr (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable individual lacking sourcing that passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• citations added and unvalidated info removed - 8 November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8B80:9B2:3D08:9CEC:D6EE:34A2 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The recent edits don't affect the central argument; I believe this individual is not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Comagfr (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Deelte - The references in the article fail to establish notability nor do they even come close. My own searches turn up nothing that would hint at notability. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Virginia Knights Militia

Virginia Knights Militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I didn't notice this when I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Dunn (political activist), and people have already voted there, or else I'd have bundled them. This also relied on extremely shaky sources (mostly News2Share and articles with brief mentions of the group in other sources). It also seems to be being used as a way to beef up Mike Dunn's notability, describing him as a "thought leader in the [boogaloo] movement by sources such as Vice Media Group" despite the fact that the source says no such thing.

The creator of the page appears to have a bit of a COI with Dunn, and has apparently been using Dunn's statements as "sources" in the pages. See Talk:Mike Dunn (political activist) and the description on File:Mike_Dunn.jpg. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources covering the group, let alone any with in depth discussion. This local news piece does mention them. But that hardly establishes notability. Otherwise, I'm seeing lots of vague references (and references in tags to blog articles where they are not mentioned in the body) and links to reddit and other unreliable sites. Hopefully googling the group didn't put me on any watchlists. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per El Cid. After conducting my own search, I do not believe there is enough in-depth coverage to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:Afd delete}}

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Gokada

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

*Keep The subject is notable in Nigeria, also it also cite at least three reliable source independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Checkuser block. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Lets looks at the references:

* Gokada is looking to be more than a motorcycle on-demand company Startups section. According to (former) Gokada CEO, Deji Oduntan, “We haven’t even started yet. Gokada is going to be literally all over Lagos.” Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Gokada, first on-demand motorcycle hailing app launches in Lagos Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as, of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance,

* Okada-On-Demand: A Gokada Review Dead link.

* Malware page WP:SIRS

* Crédit Afrique MfB seals partnership deal with Gokada Rides Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND WP:SIRS. Announcement of partnership.

* Two of Africa's leading boda-hailing startups are backed by same investor Fails WP:ORGIND

* [20] Dead link

* Trend hunter: Digital okadas get Lagos out of a jam Routine announcement, reprint. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Assuming AGF, the rest of the references are the same. It is small private company, a startup, a parcel delivery service and is entirely generic. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the analysis posted above by scope_creep. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and clearly Lynndonald above has misinterpreted what is meant by a source being "independent of the subject" which doesn't just mean that the topic organizations is functionally independent from the publisher, but also that the source contains "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't think that WP:ORGIND applies very well here. A couple of these sources are junk, sure, but is coverage "routine" just because a newspaper routinely covers news? A 5.3 million Series A is fairly respectable (this is not just a couple guys in a garage). jp×g 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no link between funding and notability. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It's respectable. Funding does not directly establish notability, but indicates that a business is doing lots of stuff. Doing lots of stuff is notorious for conferring notability... jp×g 17:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Coverage seems sufficiently nontrivial. Benjamin (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How can the coverage nontrivial when they are is no references. You have only done 21 Afd's. I suggest you go and read WP:NCORP as you have obviusly not read it. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you articulate "they are is no references" better? I see 15 references in the article. I agree most of them do not help the article meet NCORP. I only see one of the current references helping towards NCORP, which is "Confusion Rocks Gokada, Lagos’s Modern Okada" from the Nigerian Tribune. There is also a reference not currently in the article which I think would go towards NCORP, [21]. However, I don't think these two sources get it over the line, another of like quality would. Nonetheless I don't understand the comment. (nor the personalization). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @78.26: I've already went through them. I never noticed. The references [22] states:

The murder devasted the company, Nikhil Goel, Gokada’s COO and President told TechCabal. So it is an interview style article and fail WP:ORGIND. It also a dependent source, as the company is providing the information, not the journalist not going out and finding for themselves. So it fails WP:SIRS as well. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct, although I believe the article is not 100% based upon interview because of the first three paragraphs, and some interspersed information. It isn't a strong source, so I'd say we have 1.5 sources. Too bad we don't have more like what you comment on below, we need more coverage of African topics, and I think this company had a brief but significant impact on Nigeria's capitol, and may so again if regulations/situations change. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment "Confusion Rocks Gokada, Lagos’s Modern Okada" from the Nigerian Tribune is a really decent secondary source that is well written, indepth and qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. However a single source in not sufficing to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @78.26: I don't think relying on a biking company is necessarily the best way of creating articles for consumption. The main problem is finding what to do. The cultural depth and variety there in Africa is vast and mysterious for the most part, so there is plenty of history, culture, whatnot and so on, there to make millions of articles on WP. The problem for me is identifying what to translate. If somebody could give two dozen articles that were very large and obscure/byzantine in nature, I could make a effort to get them translated professionally. But such a thing doesn't seem to be done. As far as I know there is no wikiproject on it. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The sources supporting the article are the usual WP:REFBOMBing of poor sources that are easy for companies to obtain. The great majority of these are regurgitated press releases or the like and the remainder are WP:MILL coverage of normal transactions. What coverage is significant is not independent or reliable and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Soft delete. Given the lack of a change, and nature of participation, a soft delete seems wise, as consensus that notability is not currently met without a firm timeline on likely change. @Elmidae:, if you'd like me to recreate you a draft version immediately, I'm happy to do that, please let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Linbi

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

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

Poorly sourced stub about a non-notable collaborative project. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Draftify - this project appears to be just shy of publishing its final report (see roadmap here). That's the point at which one could expect some coverage in both the scientific and popular press, which might make a viable article. Currently independent coverage is too scant, although there is good primary material (e.g. [23]). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Well, as of mid-November, the final report (slated for October) has not yet materialized, so it's unlikely that any third-party coverage will emerge earlier than a few months from now. That may be too long to have it sit in draft. Maybe soft-delete, to be revisited if/when material is available? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Corruption (film)

Anti-Corruption (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reviews found during a search, just the usual film database sites. Tagged for notability since July 2017. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "廉政風暴" [Anti-Corruption]. 世界电影鉴赏辞典/四编 [An Appreciation Dictionary of World Films. Part Four.]. Fuzhou: 福建教育出版社. 2003. pp. 357–362. ISBN 9787533431112. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

     The film is discussed on pages 357–362 in a chapter titled 《廉政風暴》 ("Anti-Corruption").

  2. 黃仁著 (2010). 國片電影史話:跨世紀華語電影創意的先行者. Taipei: zh:臺灣商務印書館. ISBN 9789570524819. Retrieved 2020-11-15.

     The book notes on page 372: "由於《廉政風暴》的成功,帶動香港拍攝警匪片的風潮。迄今警匪片仍是香港片產量最多的片種。吳思遠功不可沒。最難得的是，《廉政風暴》引起學者柏楊1979年10 月12 日在《中國時報》寫了近四千字的評論，內容包括分析影片的感想啟事，在臺灣送檢被禁的官場現形記。這裡摘錄一段如下: 鳴呼,一個以肅貪為主題,顯示貪官難逃法網的電影,竟被咬定「缺乏社會教育 ". From Google Translate: "Due to the success of Anti-Corruption, the Hong Kong filming of police and criminal films has been popular. To date, police and criminal films are still the most produced film in Hong Kong. Wu Siyuan contributed a lot. The most rare thing is that Anti-Corruption caused scholar Bo Yang to write a nearly 4,000-character commentary in the China Times on October 12, 1979. The content included an analysis of the film’s thoughts, and the banned officialdom in Taiwan for prosecution. Remember. Here is an excerpt as follows: Ming Hu, a film with the theme of eliminating corruption, showing that corrupt officials can hardly escape the law, was criticized as "lack of social education ...""

  3. 行光 (2016-09-29). "《S風暴》反貪包裝警匪類型". Hong Kong Film Critics Society. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

     This is a detailed film review of S Storm that briefly discusses Anti-Corruption.

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

  Cunard (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2009-08 move to → Anti-Corruption

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above that include reviews and a five page book chapter, that have been added to the article as additional references so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Thorough argumentation. Geschichte (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Rogers, Logan County, Kentucky

Rogers, Logan County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, who doesn't mention a Rogers in Logan County in either his Logan County directory or his index. No feature named Rogers is marked at the coordinates given in pre-GNIS topos. Newspapers.com, Google search, and Google books only bring up last names, but no indication of a legally recognized community here. Rennick's annotated topographic map has "Rogers N." written near the supposed site of this, but with nothing else mentioning a community here, WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any more sources than you could, and I suspect this article was the byproduct of an old editing practice of mine that I've since stopped doing. Back when I trusted GNIS entries more, if there were multiple populated places in a state with the same name and I wanted to start an article for one of them, I would usually write articles for all of them to avoid any issues with disambiguation. In this case, I wanted to write an article about Rogers, Wolfe County, Kentucky since it has its own post office, so I figured I'd write this one while I was at it. Unfortunately, since we've now figured out that a lot of GNIS "populated places" are either minor locales or other things entirely, some of those same-name places look a lot more questionable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• delete I really have to wonder what happened at GNIS with these entries from Rennick, because in other cases there tends to be at least something to hook an entry to. In this case, there is just nothing there until relatively recently. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The subject has recieved little coverage, but there is no consensus to delete the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Masoud Zoohori

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

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

No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article mentioned the subject in passing. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete nothing adds up to making this person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable for founding darts in Iran, founding Iranian Darts Association and also founding the only round-the-clock Persian broadcasting media in Australia. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: The criteria for darts players/managers are not included in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but as is evident in some cases like association football and baseball, the managers and leaders of national teams in major tournaments are considered notable. Zoohori has been the manager of Iranian team in several international tournaments (as mentioned in darts in Iran) and is also the founder of (official) darts competitions in Iran, both practically and theoretically (through writing two books about darts). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I think that founding a national association, that is a member of the World Darts Federation would be considered notable per the reasoning of Ali Pirhayati. Spudlace (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The above arguments appear to me to demonstrate the value of keeping this encyclopedia article on a ground breaker in his field.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources seem fine to me, and in addition to that, they seem to demonstrate notability fairly well. The content in the article might be written kind of clumsily, but that doesn't mean the guy himself is non-notable. jp×g 20:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Chester Bay Live

Chester Bay Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is about a non-notable album, contains no reputable secondary sources references, and links to a commercial website. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Self-released album that received no reviews or other reliable media notice. Do not redirect to the band because their article has also been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Bay (band). DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, just like the band itself. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Album is not notable with no secondary references Spudlace (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Chester Bay (band)

Chester Bay (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is about a non-notable band and contains unsourced promotional content and links to promotional websites. The article does not contain inline sources, and the secondary sources used in the article are largely blogs entries and concert announcements that merely mention the band in passing. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete It seems like 15 years were not enough to achieve notability for this band. I have found an album review which could be the only decent source, but this site does not look good. Everything else I found were either the words separately/not in this band's context, or trivial/promotional stuff. Their live album is also up to Afd, that can go as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - They got some regional news notice in 2009 after placing in a Battle of the Bands (e.g [24]), but otherwise this article is clearly dependent on the band's self-written biography and they have received little reliable media coverage. It seems that the members are still doggedly blitzing the typical streaming and social media sites even after years of band inactivity, and that is most of their Internet presence, DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Social production of habitat

Social production of habitat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is being nominated for two reasons: 1. The SINGLE source may not be good enough to make this article WP:NOTEWORTHY-It's just talking about apartments, not everything else. 2. This article reads more like a personal essay than a wikipedia article. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 14:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Seriously, you need to do some WP:BEFORE prior to firing these off. The term is common in the scientific literature and in textbooks. That these sources are missing from the article is not an argument for deletion, merely for improving the article. - As for the "essay" tag, I don't know what that is doing there; the text is actually a reasonable, if unsourced, factual summary in neutral style. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Caleb Femi

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

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

WP:BLP of a poet and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having any credible claim to passing our notability standards for writers or filmmakers. The only notability claim on offer here is that his first book of poetry was published a few months ago, but as always writers are not automatically notable just because their books exist -- the notability test for a writer requires distinctions, such as notable literary awards and/or a significant, WP:GNG-worthy volume of critical attention being paid to their work by the media. And as a filmmaker, there's exactly no content about his film work here at all beyond the basic use of "filmmaker" as a job title in the introduction -- but notability for filmmakers works the same way as it does for writers, requiring awards and/or critical attention rather than being automatically clinched just because he has film credits. And when it comes to the sourcing, two of the three footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- and while the third is a real newspaper article, it takes more than just one of those to get a subject over GNG. As I'm not an expert in finding British media coverage below the free BBC/Guardian tier, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to those resources can find enough quality sources to do better than this -- but as written, this isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I think I've found sufficient sources to pass GNG:

• The Guardian source already in the article;
• "The best recent poetry – review roundup", also from The Guardian, which devotes a paragraph to the book;
• "Poet Caleb Femi named first young people's laureate for London", also from The Guardian;
• "Caleb Femi: 'Poetry is the art of the people'" from New Statesman, a respected British news magazine;
• "Poet Caleb Femi was shot and almost killed as a teenager. Now his new play reveals how reading Frankenstein gave him new life", a profile/interview from The Independent, a (now online-only) broadsheet;
• "Young Poet Laureate Caleb Femi: 'My generation has embraced technology - we're not waiting for publications anymore'", an article similar to the above from the Evening Standard, the primary London newspaper (now a freesheet, but with a long history and generally respected.

Is that sufficient? (I'd add them to the article but I'm a bit short of time for mainspace editing atm.) YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 14:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Keep. The Guardian and Independent references are a good start, unlike many of the Author AfDs, at least this article has a reference to an article about the author and there are other references that could and should be added. My concern is that the author does not seem to meet any of criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR. It might be too soon in the author's career for them to have impact. I would be fine with a keep and see if this is a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Cxbrx (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Cxbrx, Failing to meet WP:AUTHOR explicitly isn't a reason to delete if the GNG is met: per WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

YorkshireLad: Fair enough, I've changed to a weak keep. Multiple independent sources are what convinced me. The subject is not yet notable as an author though. Cxbrx (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, definitely. At least three references YorkshireLad gives are strong enough.[25][26][27] The interviews sections included are comparatively incidental to the editorial content. Verification (but maybe not notability) that he is a filmmaker is available.[28][29][30] The BBC thinks his opinions are worth giving and putting him on the radio.[31][32][33] All are for me in the UK free to access. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No delete !votes and lazy nomination. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Neocollyris oblita

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

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

Non-notable. Henry2378 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable." Chris857 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as argued in the !vote above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well-settled rule. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Studia Palmyreńskie

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

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "deprod, this desevers an AfD. I found two sources which mention its significance in at least few sentences (snippet view prevents checking if the discussion is in-depth), but this is still much more than for most other journals (which may be more cited but never discussed)." However, two in-passing mentions (one in a non-independent source) does not satisfy any notability criterion. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Just like we cannot assume the coverage is in-depth, we cannot assume it is not. As I said, most journals get ZERO coverage, that this one gets some makes it much more notable (in terms of GNG) than most others, even of those others have higher citation counts and such (and therefore are meet WP:NJOURNAL, which this one, admittedly, does not). Still, as I cannot indeed confirm that the sources contain more than mentions in passing, and I couldn't locate anything better, my vote is 'week'.PS. I am fine with merging per comments below as an alternative to deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • all, the more, in dubious cases the solution is to merge without prejudice to recreation when notability becomes unquestionable. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merging to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw would be preferable to deletion. No opinion on deletion for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• merge into parent article is the standard solution in such cases. Valid information, even if does not warrant a separate page. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more sources out there, since this has been published since 1966 and the two sources that Piotrus mentions do hint at notability, but it's beyond my ability to find them given they're probably on paper and in Polish. Merging to the publisher is a sensible alternative to deletion if the notability is borderline/unproven. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean. – Joe (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Roger A. Weir

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

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. Seems to be a type of memorial. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 19:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:TNT, and WP:PROF. Sourcing and formatting are terrible. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything in either the article content or sourcing that could meet any kind of notability criterion. It's almost a case for A7 speedy, but those are usually for much shorter articles. Here, there are paragraphs and paragraphs of...nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. WP:NAUTHOR is possible (though I didn't quickly find reviews), but there is essentially nothing useable in the long and unreferenced article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. Sandstein 15:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean

Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded with reason "Translation of a plwiki article, should probably at least be discussed at AfD." I don't know the notability criteria of the Polish WP and in any case, those are immaterial here. PROD reson stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: I couldn't find any source that discusses the significance or impact of this publication. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to merge, as some content has been referenced now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability for this journal, and the article is currently sourced entirely to primary sources. I was going to suggest a merge or redirect to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw, but that article is also sourced entirely to primary coverage and has unclear notability too. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merging to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw would be preferable to deletion. No opinion on deletion for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• merge into parent article is the standard solution in such cases. Valid information, even if does not warrant a separate page. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, merging is often the standard solution in these cases. I dislike that solution (here and elsewhere), however, because the only source we have is the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If the only thing the source is being used for is to say that this journal exists and is affiliated with that institution, why would that be a problem? – Joe (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Where does it stop? Are we going to include lists of everything that the journal/institution mention on their websites? We don't do this for other things either, so why make an exception for journals? Also, this is inconsistent with our practice for other journals. We don't merge al OMICS journals to OMICS Publishing Group, even though the journal exists and is affiliated with that publisher. You may say: "hey, but those are predatory journals". Yes, in the case of OMICS that's pretty clear, but how about other publishers/journals? Are we, WP editors, going to install ourselves as judges on what information lacking independent sources should be included and what can only be covered if we have those independent sources? I'm all for making it easier for academic journals to get covered, that's why we have NJournals. But if something even misses that low bar, we shouldn't cover it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Notability guidelines (including the insistence on independent sources) do not apply to content within articles. Whether or not to include a journal in the article of its publisher is simply a matter of editorial judgement based on due weight. For a large publisher (legitimate or not), obviously it doesn't make sense to list the thousands of journals they publish. For a small scientific institute that publishes one or two, it probably does. I am not sure why the non-independence of the source would be relevant, unless there is some legitimate reason for thinking that the PCMA would not be a reliable source on what the PCMA publishes? – Joe (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. It's pretty hard to gauge the notability of such a niche periodical, but I'm not seeing any of the usual indicators like indexing by selective databases either. But merging to the organisation that publishes it is an obvious alternative to deletion in this case, since the article content is encyclopaedic and verifiable. The notability of the merge target isn't something to be discussed in this AfD. – Joe (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studia Palmyreńskie. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the publisher's website you can read that although the journal is associated with the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology it publish the research of all researches and that all articles are subject to a "double-blind reviewing process" by independent experts, which ensures the journal's independence from the institution. I checked that journal articles are cited e.g. in the Scopus database (216 citations in journals indexed in Scopus. The journal is indexed in Index Copernicus, Central and Eastern European Online Library and BazHum.Aszu23 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, but none of that makes its notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Weather Lady

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Weather Lady
• Articles for deletion/The Weather Lady (2nd nomination)

The Weather Lady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Not sure if the previous AfD from 2007 is related, but this is not much better to whatever was deleted back then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Another non-notable Rocky & Bullwinkle story arc. What's with all the non-notable Rocky and Bullwinkle story arcs that has been popping up lately? The show is notable, these story arcs are not. End of story. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seven Deadly Enemies of Man

Seven Deadly Enemies of Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was created from a redirect by User:Rtkat3 earlier this year, and shortly after, User:TTN prodded it with the following rationale: "Fails WP:GNG.", in turn, Rtkat3 deprodded with a comment "There can be potential for this page. Perhaps it can be AFD instead.". Unfortunatley, the article has not been improved significantly since, and the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, so yes, I think this can and should be AfDed instead... so, here we are. Can anyone find sources to rescue this? Otherwise restoring it to a redirect like it was until January this year might be the best compromise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I looked for a redirect target and found List of DC Comics major characters, but that's too much of a travesty to be useful and should be deleted as a content fork of Lists of DC Comics characters. Any reader familiar enough with Captain Marvel/Shazam to search this term should be able to find the relevant information on related pages without a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - I found a lot of mentions of them in sources while looking for Rock of Eternity so I am assuming I feel the same with these characters. Keep in mind I can’t rescue too many articles at one time so no source linking to prove it yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete unless proper sourcing is brought forth. Nothing has changed since I placed the PROD, so it still fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Significant coverage per WP:GNG. The article should be worked on (or discussed in a section at Seven Deadly Sins or somewhere else), per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOEFFORT.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/4/9/18281369/seven-deadly-sins-shazam-se7en

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2019/04/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-shazams-seven-deadly-sins

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/shazam-what-are-the-seven-deadly-sins-/

https://www.cbr.com/shazam-concept-art-seven-deadly-sins/

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/shazam-takes-on-black-adam-and-the-seven-deadly-sins/

https://collider.com/shazam-director-interview-black-adam/

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a26295869/shazam-dc-trailer-2/

Darkknight2149 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Let me review them: [ttps://www.vox.com/culture/2019/4/9/18281369/seven-deadly-sins-shazam-se7en Vox] is mainly about the biblical seven sins, doesn't even compare it much to the movie ones, it is pretty much just stating the obvious 'the seven sins from the movie were inspired by the biblical ones, and here is what those are'. DComics (official blog) is a bit better, as it introduces the characters comic book history, but there is little analysis and the source is not independent, IMHO. The Comocbook one does the same (recap the character history from the comics), but is more independent: [34], ditto for [35]. Then we have a WP:INTERVIEW ([36]), a super short inteview/comment on about the design ([37]). Overall, I think we have reliable sources for plot summary, but still next to no analysis of significance outside the comicverse. This really boils down to whether we consider plot summary recaps sufficient for meeting GNG or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable enemies of the Marvel Family and I support the claims of @Jhenderson777: and @Darkknight2149: --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep based on the sources above. The Vox article is without question a good source. The other articles I find are sufficient for passing GNG because they go into the creation, development, and film adaptation of the characters. Rhino131 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources quoted are satisfactory to meet GNG requirements for a standalone article in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per TTN and Piotrus. Sources indicate plot summary, but not any sort of reception. Just a minor plot element although I can see it being mentioned in some sort of Shazam! (franchise) page that could be created._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete Sources 3 & 4 above make a stab at independent summary and commentary, but IMO fall short of what we require in terms of substantial coverage, and the rest is either in-house or interview/promotional. Not quite getting there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Piotrus offers an interesting comment I would like others to address. If there are reliable sources for plot summary alone, is it sufficient to satisfy the notability guidelines? I find it rather odd that it would be enough, but I would like to learn what others think. For now, I am leaning towards delete, but still thinking about it... - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I do not believe so. Plot summary alone being the content of an article violates WP:NOTPLOT. "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think the coverage presented is significant. No objection to covering in a list. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: The Vox article is decent; it talks about both the fictional characters and the mythical concept, and compares the two. The CBR article has some real-world design info. When comics characters appear in live-action movies and TV, they tend to get coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Please click on the Scholar search above, and you’ll find a handful of informative books and a masters thesis, which discuss these very characters in some interesting contexts. This article seems to add to the encyclopedic knowledge on the subject matter.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Concertmusic: If good sources exist, can you link them here, preferably with page numbers or quotations to where this group of fictional characters is analyzed in a way that goes beyond a descriptive plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Here are a few sources that directly refer to the subject matter. Nothing in-depth, but illustrating that the article subject is used in analytical and academic studies:
      • FROM EVERYMAN TO HERO: THE INCULTURATION AND PROPAGANDA OF THE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN MARVEL AND SPY SMASHER SERIALS pg. 17
      • Harold Schechter The New Gods: Psyche and Symbol in Popular Art Chapter 1 pg. 21
      • The Comic-Book Superhero The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child--Concertmusic (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect to an appropriate target if there is one) - the only decent sourcing is the Vox piece, and in my opinion does not go into enough depth about the characters to warrant passing WP:GNG. Let alone that it is the only decent source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Kanpur

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Kanpur
• Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Kanpur (2nd nomination)

List of tallest buildings in Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Kanpur, but it's not similar. Still has no merit though, the building aren't even that tall. The recent precedence is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Gwalior and many others. Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the buildings in this list are notable to have their own article, so this list serves no useful navigational purpose. There seems to be no in-depth coverage of tall buildings in Kanpur that would demonstrate that this topic passes WP:LISTN. Most of the information in this article is unsourced, and seems to have been taken from the skyscraperpage website. This seems to mostly be a list of not particularly tall Run-of-the-mill buildings. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - same reasons as mentioned above and other recent tallest buildings in... deletions Eyebeller (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - 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. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis and Skyscraperpage. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Kanpur' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources Spiderone 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mnop1234 (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW and my own standards. Growing city, but none of the buildings are especially tall or famous. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Indore

List of tallest buildings in Indore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prodded before, so declined twice. Still has no merit though, the building aren't even that tall. The recent precedence is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Gwalior and many others. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - niche article, buildings aren't that tall Eyebeller (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. None of these buildings have articles, so this list has no usage for navigation. I can find no substantial sources discussing tall buildings in Indore as a group to show this topic passes WP:LISTN, all the results I can find are database websites. Seems to be a collection of WP:Run-of-the-mill apartment buildings. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - 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. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis, Skyscraperpage and Skyscraper Center. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Indore' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources Spiderone 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_skyscrapers. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural close with a redirect of the song article to singer Ikka Singh. This appears to be the nominator's intention before erroneously nominating the previous redirect for deletion. Meanwhile this AfD has shown some disagreement about where to redirect, with some unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism. That can be ironed out elsewhere under the appropriate procedures. (non-admin closure) DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Parichay (song)

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

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

Page empty Ankit (Talk with me) 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ankit (Talk with me) 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural close: the page is empty because you removed a perfectly acceptable redirect, and then replaced the contents with the AfD notice. This isn't how AfD works. If you think the redirect was pointing to the wrong article, you should have either boldly redirected it to a more appropriate article or taken it to WP:RFD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I understand that this was an inappropriate edit, please guide me through the right procedure. There is no article that this article could be redirected to, perhaps this article could be saved by adding well sourced and referencd content.Ankit (Talk with me) 22:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What was wrong with keeping the original redirect, which was to the article of the singer writer of this song, and which mentions this song in that article? Richard3120 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the redirect was misleading. Suppose you are reading the article of singer of the song and you click on the wikilink of the article of the song and you are again redirect to the same page that you were before, wouldn't it feel wrong.Ankit (Talk with me) 22:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Furthermore I don't think that the said article meets WP:NSONG criteria.Ankit (Talk with me) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Then all it needed was to remove the link from the singer's article. And I agree it doesn't meet WP:NSONG, that's why it was redirected in the first place... usually if there is an album or an artist's article to redirect to, that option is preferred to outright deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120:Then I think a more appropriate redirect page would be Ikka Singh. Thank you for your patience, can you please tell what should be done nw.Ankit (Talk with me) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct, Ikka Singh was actually the singer, Amit Bhadana was the co-writer and producer. So we will wait and see if any other editor has a comment or suggestion to make... then perhaps you would like to withdraw the nomination by stating below that you would like to withdraw it, then the administrator will close this discussion, and then the page can be changed as necessary... it's not a good idea to make any changes to the "Parichay" page right now while it still has the AfD notice on it, we should wait until this discussion is closed. Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Totally wrong way of intiating an AfD discussion. But, at the same time the redirected page is linked to a youtuber page... which itself facing a WP:COI tag. Whatsoever it is... a piece of advice for Ankit2299: your cross-wiki editing is extremely random and without any objective (just checked your English and Hindi Wikipedia contributions) - either you are trying to rake editing points or something else. Please read the rules of AfDs/CSDs properly and if you have doubts, then engage with more experienced editor(s) in a constructive manner. Your current approach might be considered as an act of vandalism. - Hatchens (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Richard3120 for taking an intiative to guide Ankit2299. - Hatchens (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens Thank you for your advice, but please clarify whether it is my current approach to AfD or my editing the Wikipedia in general that might be considered as vandalism.Ankit (Talk with me) 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Ankit2299, let me invite you to my user talk page. We can discuss this over there. As far this Afd is concerned... your intent is good but approach is wrong and it happens. Let's not divert the AfD discussion. Our conversation might confuse others. - Hatchens (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ikka Singh. This seems to be what the nominator intended before committing some procedural errors. The song was deemed non-notable several months ago and the article was redirected to the songwriter's page. If that was inappropriate, just re-redirect as needed. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• comment what is this ??Ankit, this is not the correct way to nominate any article for afd please go through our guidelines, look...when any topic or entity related to a notable article is non-notable, we prefer a soft redirect to the main subject(in case the second topic has somehow a wiki page).... Kindly look at some example...Riyaz Aly which is famous tiktok artist but yet not notable enough, we prefer here a redirect to tiktok related subject and also look this Heena Shahab Wife of criminal politician Mohammad Shahabuddin, we again prefer here a redirect to his husband because his wife is not notable (yet) but is relates to main subject as his wife, so please before going to start a afd just go through our guidelines, I think Afds are serious discussion so please just get out of such vandal type edits.27.61.65.126 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Kindly note, this IP address - 27.61.65.126 has been blocked in the past. To learn more about this, click here. - Hatchens (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No need of Redirect every thing is fine till nominator's edit just revert his edit, the redirected article i.e to Amit Bhadana is absolutely right, for non-indians I suggest you guys to go and search for parichay song on web you literally got all results related only to Amit Bhadana. I said this because in India everyone is familiar or know this song is related to Amit. or you can easily ping any Indian contributor. Thanks27.61.65.126 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

John Furse (director)

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

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. One reasonably well-received film, Blind Flight, isn't enough. No significant awards either. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to fail film director notability guidelines. Whilst Ian Hart did win Best Actor in a Narrative Feature for his role Blind Flight at the Tribeca Film Festival, it was due to his role in the film, not the film in general so the film director awards criteria are not valid in this sense. Eyebeller (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Stages (Triumph album). MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Empty Inside

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

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

This podcast is not separately notable to its host, Jennette McCurdy. 1292simon (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I was unable to find anything about this that wasn't just the same type of stuff that is already in the article. Social media links and the like. So, the article fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to have no coverage outside of social media and primary listings. Title is too ambiguous to serve as a useful redirect. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stages (Triumph album): Barely found anything about the podcast. Since that's also the name of one of the songs of the mentioned album, a redirect there may be the way to go. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Emcee Lynx

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources present in the article are mostly links to the subject's own defunct website, Bandcamp pages, and poorly attributed interviews that are not independent of the subject. A search for significant coverage from third-party reliable sources has yielded very poor results to establish notability. ƏXPLICIT 07:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 07:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 07:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Mangalam Publications. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Cinema Mangalam

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

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

A non-notable magazine. Not in circulation. Failed to find any significant coverage on the subject. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Possibly Redirect to Mangalam Publications, otherwise Delete. I have been unable to find any sources that indicate this magazine passes WP:GNG. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mangalam Publications - I have also failed to find sources that would make this magazine pass notability guidelines and that it would have no original research. Eyebeller (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mangalam Publications per above.   // Timothy :: talk  16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Reem Erhama

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

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-11 ✗ deleted, 2020-11 ✗ deleted

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Friends of the East Broad Top

Friends of the East Broad Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has zero citations and fails the WP:SIRS criteria to justify its own stand-alone article. The Friends of East Broad Top is already mentioned in the article about the railroad itself (East Broad Top Railroad and Coal Company) which is significant because it is a recognized National Historic Site in the US. However there is no inherent notability from its being a support organization for the railroad. Blue Riband► 04:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 04:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete It really doesn't make sense to redirect. Plenty of historic structures have "Friends of" organizations. No reason this has presumed notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Walt Disney Studios (Burbank)#Team Disney – The Michael D. Eisner Building. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Team Disney

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

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

The article fails notability and does not cite any sources. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nomination as these buildings are clearly not notable and the article cites zero sources. I did a quick search for sources that could demonstrate significant coverage and did not find anything even close. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: No sources, zero notability, delete. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Walt_Disney_Studios_(Burbank)#Team_Disney_–_The_Michael_D._Eisner_Building. As this seems to be a needless content fork of it. I'm against a merge though. Since this article is unsourced. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hilltop, Logan County, Kentucky

Hilltop, Logan County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Claim that this was the hometown of an Iwo Jima figure in an early revision is actually a reference to Hill Top, Fleming County, Kentucky it appears. Rennick calls it a locale (geography), but gives no further details. Appears on the topos as a very small cluster of buildings. A WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, Google Books, and Google itself was unable to bring up any significant coverage for this Hilltop. Since a locale is by definition not a legally recognized populated place, this Hilltop fails WP:GEOLAND. WP:GNG does not appear to be met either. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris Turori

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Turori and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG; general WP:ROUTINE transaction coverage with very little depth outlining his previous clubs. He is capped in a lower level national team, but I can find no evidence he has appeared in any notable tournaments, or even with the team in any official matches. The closest source to meeting GNG is this in The San Diego Union-Tribune, but it is pretty basic and not enough to push this over the "multiple independent sources of significant depth" of GNG; it is mostly just an interview. Yosemiter (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Yosemiter above Spiderone 11:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, none of the coverage is either independent or significant. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Sylvia

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Poor article but still seems to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Sylvia and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete American Rudby news directory listing of team squads are not the sort of things that adds to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete It's pretty clear most players in this league do not meet GNG and this is no exception. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing more than listings and brief profiles on websites that exhaustively list every rugby player; no WP:GNG coverage Spiderone 08:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Fakaʻosi Pifeleti

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Pifeleti and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet the rugby criteria. The coverage does not meet GNG which requires substantial coverage in sources that are indepdent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - not sure what significant coverage is being referred to above. All I can see are passing mentions like this and this Spiderone 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG pretty clearly, none of the coverage is significant, reliable, or not independent. SportingFlyer T·C 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 19:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Mitchell (rugby union)

Aaron Mitchell (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Mitchell and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that this subject meets WP:GNG. (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There's no significant coverage - a blog post and non-independent team website stuff here. Easy delete for WP:GNG failure. SportingFlyer T·C 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - completely agree with the two delete votes above and nom Spiderone 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Mayo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jeff Mayo
• Articles for deletion/Jeff Mayo (2nd nomination)

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Unsourced since 2006 and searches only reveal the usual social media sites and book sellers, nothing more. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Well I don't have a strong opinion. It's certainly marginal at best and the loss of the article would cost us little. So let's see...
  • It's too short to be a very good article. There doesn't seem much to say about Mr Mayo. The article is really just a stand in for the school, which had an article which was deleted. I don't know if there's ref'd material out there to expand the article -- quite possibly not.
  • And FWIW the school may have been a promotional article, which means this one would be too. With commercial entities that always something to consider, at the margins.
  • On the other hand, the Mayo School has existed for a half-century now and seems to be a real place with real teachers and real classes and so forth, I guess. I would image that (astrology not being a hot high-demand field I suppose) it must be one of the larger schools in the field.
  • The page views is running two a day, which is quite low. On the other hand, why do we need to tell even these two people "Oh, read about Jeff Mayo or the Mayo School and want to found out what he/it is, did you? Well go pound sand cos we're tired of telling you."
  • On the other other hand, Google has not really heard of this guy or this school. "'Jeff Mayo' -wikipedia" is all about a veterinarian in Washington State and a school official in Tennessee. So he doesn't appear to be capable of meeting WP:BIO, not even close, unless some extensive digging is done maybe.
  • On the other other other hand, it appears that his books have been published by actual reputable publishers... Astrology: A Key to Personality is apparently related to Penguin Books or maybe to C W Daniel which was bought by Random House, and How to Read the Ephemeris was apparently first published by the University of California, or something. Shambhala Publications also published some, and altho they're an "indy" publisher they're real and established with a good catalog. Teach Yourself Astrology was published by the English Universities Press which was apparently bought up by Hodder & Stoughton, a legit press.

So he's not running these off on a mimeograph in his mom's basement, and maybe he's a real expert in this (old and famous and historically important, if now rather niche and outré) field. It looks like that one book is a (scholarly?) analysis of Raphael's Ephemeris, which was written in the early 18th century and has a an article here, so it's not nothing I guess.

OK. So, hmmm. I still can't decide, not without more research. But, the article is obviously going to be deleted, simply by the more or less autonomic functioning of the Wikipedia nervous system -- "Does not meet WP:GNG, delete, next" -- so I dunno if further analysis is worthwhile. Will we be deleting an important published expert in an important field? I... yeah, maybe. But there's only so much vetting of 2-reader-a-day articles that people are willing to spend time on. I'm not. It is what it is. My work here is done, carry on! Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Advise Keep at this point, it's been a week and nobody seems to care about it either way, so the default would be "no change" and anyway the article is not hurting anyone I guess, so you can count me in the Keep league for the purposes of deciding. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Herostratus - you are going for Keep for an article with zero sources and zero searchable sources? This seems wholly inconsistent with WP:GNG. Please can you provide a rationale for this based on Wikipedia policy and guidance please?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it is inconsistent with GNG. That's certainly a serious issue, yes. GNG is s guideline, and it's an important one I've referenced often. It's an important guideline but still guideline, and WP:IAR is a policy, and a core one, and as WP:1Q puts it, the question is "Does it make Wikipedia better or not? If yes, keep the article". It says here people searching on the string "jeff mayo" will be better served by this page than getting a "page does not exist" message. Prove me wrong. here is a blurb and chart for mayo, here is a brief remembrance. Maybe there's more. I'm OK with "Jeff Mayo was a person, here's his vital stats, he founded and ran such-and-so important school, and wrote some important books, and here's a list of them." That's useful data. You don't have to agree and that's fine too. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails GNG. (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Newspapers.com has a few trivial mentions of "Jeff Mayo Astrology", but I found no reviews of his work or articles about him. Searching Google for the same found no WP:RS sources. Google Scholar has a few citations, many are not peer reviewed journals. The references in possibly peer reviewed journals are at best trivial. The article meets none of the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR Cxbrx (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. This looks like a WP:COATRACK for the school, the man himself does not seem very notable, and since he's been dead for twenty years it seems unlikely that he will do anything to become notable in the future. jp×g 21:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cayetano Escudero Sanz

Cayetano Escudero Sanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely unsourced biographical stub about a person notable only as the first settler of a small island. This is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, so this article does not demonstrate or reliably source a credible reason why he would need a standalone biographical article separately from his name already being mentioned in Culebra, Puerto Rico. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice of recreation if sourcing/notability can be shown. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:Verifiability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Pharaoh of the Wizards, I have added two sources in the article which I guess are reliable but I do not think they are inline with WP:SIGCOV. Would you consider reviewing them? I think there would be plethora of coverage about him, possibly in the historical works about the area that he colonized! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per the sources I've added in the article, and the comment I made above. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Two footnotes, which are both books about other things that happen to glancingly mention the subject's name on one page, is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG. We need sources that are actually about him, not sources which happen to mention him in the process of being about other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bearcat, I do understand that these sources fail SIGCOV as I mentioned in my earlier comment, my wk vote was based on another argument, but still, that is not going to help and thus I've struck my wk vote. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - all I am finding on him are books or web pages with variants of the same single simple sentence, and it seems unlikely anything more will be able to be said about this man from existing WP:RS than would fit in two sentences at most at Culebra, Puerto Rico#History. Clearly WP:GNG fail, and probably WP:ONEEVENT applies as well - he is not noteworthy outside of the foundation, and the foundation itself is such a minor topic it only merits extremely brief mention in the history section of a page on the island.Agricolae (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge (if there is in fact anything additional) and redirect to Culebra, Puerto Rico#History. The subject's only notability is that he surveyed the island to see if it was habitable. The island has a population of 1818, the equivalent of a large village. The failure to settle it until 1880 suggests that it was always rather inhospitable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Austin Reaves

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

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

Not at all my field, but I thought the basic concept for college athletes in NSPORTS required more than this. In particular, the sources are all local, and therefore do not show " national media attention" DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable college basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG. There are multiple independent sources covering the subject in detail.--User:Namiba 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep clearly meets GNG with sources in the article. Not fair to say all the coverage is local, as there is coverage from several different papers and not just from Oklahoma. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – Easily meets WP:GNG and the article is well sourced to prove it. The coverage is from at least four different states. Poor nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Rikster.2604:2000:E010:1100:A4DE:20C7:2173:888 (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite a lot of the keep !votes lacking any valid arguments, noone who wants to delete the article has sufficiently explained why the coverage presented in the AfD and in the article do not meet the standards of WP:GNG (the Camus chapter or the IGN article for example were not really discussed). There is support to merge the Cain and Abel articles, the discussion of this proposal should continue on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cain (DC Comics)

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

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or merge but not delete. Recurring DC character. But notable? Maybe. Since he was a featured recurring hosted characters from DC for a long time . We shall see. All it is missing is reception in all honesty. I should note that this editor is just baiting what seems like new articles but isn’t because it was an old duo article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment note:I decided to strike my vote. In my personal opinion it proves notability with my copy edits and research on topic but I can’t speak for everybody on here just yet. It’s better but it ain’t perfect yet. Also with an adaption of the Sandman I feel there might be more coverage of related characters in the future. Here is hoping the Netflix adaptation is well hyped. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Recurring character across multiple significant titles. Artw (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect - The topic lacks real world information from multiple reliable sources to match the standards of WP:WAF/WP:NOTPLOT and fulfill WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per TTN, "it's a recurring character" is not a valid argument unless someone can come up with sources that prove notability. There are many recurring characters that lack any sort of notability whatsoever._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There is already sources. So keep grasping that we are just using “recurring”. I swear you guys just vote delete for the sake of it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

*This warrants mentioning at Cain and Abel#Cultural references or another character article, but I don't see how it warrants an article in itself. Darkknight2149 07:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Here is some primary and secondary coverage for the topic, but not a tonne:

https://ew.com/tv/2018/10/30/chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-sandman-homage/?amp=true

https://bloody-disgusting.com/comics/3615993/dark-side-dc-five-horror-comics-binge-read-dc-universe/

https://www.cbr.com/comic-creators-models-cain-and-abel-len-wein/

https://screenrant.com/swamp-thing-magic-dc-universe/

https://www.dcuniverse.com/news/beginners-guide-dc-horror/

Darkknight2149 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong keep-This is a good article! It just needs some fixing up. JTZegers^Speak
  _Aura 14:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• In what way is this presently in good shape? It fails to live up to the standards of WP:WAF. It fails WP:NOTPLOT due to that. It lacks reliable sources discussing the content in a non-trivial manner, so it fails WP:GNG. It seems perfect for a Fandom wiki, but certainly not Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Just about every source talks about its creation and conception. So only partly true. It just need critical reception to warrant their stand alone worthiness to strike out my merge vote which I am tempted to do anyway. There is more than just plot and the plot info is basically adhering to manual of style of the comics WikiProject Comics anyway. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Let this page stay. Cain and Abel should deserve separate articles per the suggestion of @Jhenderson777:, @Artw:, and Aura. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I have a soft spot for Gaiman's stuff, which seems to be the 'high literature' of comics anyway. Sadly, the sources above are very bad (one mentions the subject in a single sentence, that's the very definition of trivial, in passing mention as defined in GNG). The only better source is [38], but it is still still a single one. But at least that's one relatively in-depth source. Can we find one more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If you like to read more than I do, @Piotrus:. Here may be an interesting find. I am sure it has info on Cain, Abel and possibly even Eve. I will ping on some more if I find some. Not sure if reliable but it cited sources that are. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jhenderson777: Thanks, I'll take a look. There is a short discussion of Cain and Abel's origins (House of Secrets (DC Comics), House of Mystery, plus of course the Bible). Unfortunately, I don't see much else of value there, it is the usual plot summary. The best is a short reference to him and his brother as "Gothic/slapstick characters" (and another as to them being "less famous DC characters"). I don't think this is good enough to rescue the brothers from wiki oblivion, but do ping me if there is anything else to review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Another one on CBR on Cain and Abel. Disappointedly not one of Eve. But of Lucien. The next character I was going to make an article of right after Eve before the AFD's: https://www.cbr.com/characters-hope-see-netflix-sandman/ Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Yay for Netflix adaptation, but my take on Top 10 would be quire different (Death, Lucien, Cain&Abel, Matthew...). Anyway, off topic :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This says the anthologies that focused on Cain and Abel were like childhood readings to Gaiman. Another interesting read maybe. Also yes the Netflix series sounds exciting. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Here is a mention too. But it says the same thing as said before. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: There are decent sources already present in the article that have not been addressed here. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with Abel (DC Comics) - After the major improvements to both articles, I am now convinced that the content is keepable. However, I am not convinced that Cain and Abel are independently notable from each other. Both of these articles need to be combined. Darkknight2149 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I just realized this too. Though they seem to have different appearances. They seem more notable together after all and I failed to see that due to first appearances conflict and sometimes different appearances all together. Also still wondering about Eve who sometimes is interconnected with them too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a DC Horror hosts article already? If not it might be an idea to combine all of them. Artw (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Like a list article? It doesn’t sound like a bad idea though I feel that the duo Cain and Abel are notable enough as is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: In the alternative, you may also hypothetically merge both articles into a new one called Cain and Abel (DC Comics). Kind of like this Xerneas and Yveltal. Both characters are concepted and linked based on the same biblical dynamic anyway. Haleth (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that was whatDarkKnight2149 meant. I am the one who split them off anyway from and I would unsplit them on Cain and Abel (comics) or somewhere if that be the consensus. All this maybe could be done when the AFD is done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination's assertions are false as the page already has plenty of good sources and it is easy to find more, such as The Encyclopedia of the Gothic, which demonstrates the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149:. I assume this was what you mean? @Onel5969: Is this sandbox better? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Sizable article well supported with references. The nomination reference of ‘real world’ makes no sense to me - that certainly does not seem to be a relevant criteria here.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - there are references that demonstrate notability. Archrogue (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep for now, as there is no consensus for deletion. There probably should be some merging between this and the Eve and Abel articles, but that should not be discussed in AFD. Rhino131 (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite some keep !votes with questionable arguments, noone who wants to delete the article has sufficiently explained why the coverage presented in the AfD and in the article do not meet the standards of WP:GNG, for example the Camus chapter [39] or the sources mentioned by Toughpigs. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Eve (DC Comics)

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

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or merge but not delete. Recurring DC character. But notable? Maybe. Since she was a featured recurring hosted characters from DC for a long time . We shall see. All it is missing is reception in all honesty. I should note that this editor is just baiting what seems like new articles. This one is new and is almost as just as essential and recurring as Cain and Abel. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Also please put more effort than saying it fails notability please IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Note: I don’t where to merge them yet if the consensus is to merge. That could be figured out later. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• keep Recurring character across multiple significant titles. Artw (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete "It's a recurring character" is not a valid argument unless someone can come up with sources that prove notability. There are many recurring characters that lack any sort of notability whatsoever. She does not appear to be a particularly notable character and only gets a minor mention in List of Lucifer characters. The article itself is WP:ALLPLOT cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It has publication history. Not all is just plot and cruft. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Vote pending: Waiting to see the coverage asserted above. Maybe my Google Fu needs adjustment, or maybe any coverage was lost in a sea of other "Adam and Eve" stuff, but all I was able to dig up was this: https://screenrant.com/lucifer-dc-comic-characters-hoping/ Darkknight2149 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FICTION, sources are either primary (not secondary WP:IS WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV) or fancruft, promotional, or mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would establish notability. I don't think there is content worth merging, but if someone sees material that is not WP:OR / WP:SNYTH and is properly sourced I'd consider a merge.   // Timothy :: talk  15:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and saying there is no content worth merging is way too harsh. She was on List of The Sandman characters and List of Lucifer characters. Though those two she is not an original character on. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - As with the other related articles, coverage is pretty non-existent. This does not meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT), no reception, analysis, significance, nothing to make it pass WP:NFICTION or WP:GNG. Do ping me if better sources are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: There is coverage already present in the article that has not been addressed, including American Comic Book Chronicles and Back Issue! which are reliable independent sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 2:I added info to the point I think it is notable enough to be merged NOT deleted. I am not sure she is notable enough character yet as an article compared to her sons since she doesn’t play a major role in The Sandman as much. Though I think she has enough relevance to merge or conjoined to something relevant to DC Comics. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Sizable article well supported with references. The nomination reference of ‘real world’ makes no sense to me - that certainly does not seem to be a relevant criteria here.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep for now, as there is no consensus for deletion. There probably should be some merging between this and the Cain and Abel articles, but that should not be discussed in AFD. Rhino131 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Salvadorian Magpie

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

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

Appears to be a hoax. I'm not finding any search results aside from Wikipedia mirrors. Pretty much every statement in the article is dubious or nonsensical.

1. "word that means thin-winged in Latin"; Salvadorian doesn't remotely resemble any Latin word for thin-winged
2. "discovery never appeared in official publications"; i.e., it fails the rationale underlying WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES
3. renowned institutions like Kellog - Chicago"; apparently refers to the Northwestern University School of Business, not exactly a source of ornithological expertise
4. "melting ice of the North Pole/Brown Polar Bear Phenomenon"; flagrant bullshit
5. "Pelicans returning to Capistran"; swallows are noted to return to San Juan Capistrano, not pelicans Plantdrew (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Also note that the picture linked at the bottom looks like it is... just a crow, amusingly. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that a totally rubbish article like this can last 9 years is a strong indication that we should alter our policies and make every new article go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax, no such species (but credit where credit is due: that image looks like a Jamaican crow. Points for trying :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - I completely agree with JPL here. This article should not have been on here for 9 minutes let alone 9 years. Complete failure of our core principle WP:V Spiderone 14:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Down with hoaxes! But seriously, hoaxes do not belong on WP unless they are very notable for some reason. This one conclusively is not. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Destroy this right now! Down with hoaxes, per SilverTiger12! How on earth did this manage to stay here for 9 freaking years?? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite a lot of the keep !votes lacking any valid arguments, noone who wants to delete the article has sufficiently explained why the coverage do not meet the standards of WP:GNG (the Camus chapter or the IGN article for example were not really discussed). There is support to merge the Cain and Abel articles, the discussion of this proposal should continue on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Abel (DC Comics)

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

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

No indication of real world notabilty. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or merge but not delete. Recurring DC character. But notable? Maybe. Since he was a featured recurring hosted characters from DC for a long time . We shall see. All it is missing is reception in all honesty. I should note that this editor is just baiting what seems like new articles but isn’t because it was an old duo article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment note:I decided to strike my merge vote. In my personal opinion it proves notability with my copy edits and research on topic but I can’t speak for everybody on here just yet. It’s better but it ain’t perfect yet. Also with an adaption of the Sandman I feel there might be more coverage of related characters in the future. Here is hoping the Netflix adaptation is well hyped. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Recurring character across multiple significant titles. Artw (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete "It's a recurring character" is not a valid argument unless someone can come up with sources that prove notability. There are many recurring characters that lack any sort of notability whatsoever. This article is entirely plotcruft that is more fit for a fan wiki._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

* I can't say it better than I already said it at WP:Articles for deletion/Cain (DC Comics):

This warrants mentioning at Cain and Abel#Cultural references or another character article, but I don't see how it warrants an article in itself. Here is some primary and secondary coverage for the topic, but not a tonne:

https://ew.com/tv/2018/10/30/chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-sandman-homage/?amp=true

https://bloody-disgusting.com/comics/3615993/dark-side-dc-five-horror-comics-binge-read-dc-universe/

https://www.cbr.com/comic-creators-models-cain-and-abel-len-wein/

https://screenrant.com/swamp-thing-magic-dc-universe/

https://www.dcuniverse.com/news/beginners-guide-dc-horror/

Darkknight2149 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 08:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of The Sandman characters#Cain and Abel, which includes a brief description of their pre-Sandman appearances as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dislike that idea. Because that implies they are original The Sandman characters. They aren’t. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The target section starts with a subsection talking about their first appearances and early roles. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Still there is better options to place the merge IMO. If a merge is the definite outcome of the vote. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to alternatives. What did you have in mind? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

: I am still more leniant on keep, @Argento Surfer:, though they can go on the letter list article of DC if merged. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: What are your thoughts on the revised version of the article? Darkknight2149 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete - The topic fails to establish notability through sufficient reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. It's mostly plot summary so it should be limited to the scope of the primary work in which the character appears. TTN (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Let this page stay. Cain and Abel should deserve separate articles per the suggestion of @Jhenderson777: and @Artw:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete. (copying my comment from Cain AfD since the sources here and there are identical). I have a soft spot for Gaiman's stuff, which seems to be the 'high literature' of comics anyway. Sadly, the sources above are very bad (one mentions the subject in a single sentence, that's the very definition of trivial, in passing mention as defined in GNG). The only better source is [40], but it is still still a single one. But at least that's one relatively in-depth source. Can we find one more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: There are decent references already present in the article which have not been addressed here, including American Comic Book Chronicles, an independent reliable source. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with Cain (DC Comics) - After the major improvements to both articles, I am now convinced that the content is keepable. However, I am not convinced that Cain and Abel are independently notable from each other. Both of these articles need to be combined. Darkknight2149 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Sizable article well supported with references. The nomination reference of ‘real world’ makes no sense to me - that certainly does not seem to be a relevant criteria here.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - fyi, no real world notability is part of WP:NFICTION, "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." In this article, all the real world references are short blurbs or mere mentions, rather than in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about User:Jhenderson777/Cain and Abel (DC Comics)? Or this still? Not sure why you randomly messaged this though I feel there is sources that describe them in great detail for GNG. In my subjective mindset anyway. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also your link is an essay. Essays are not guidelines. Just a heads up. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification on real world. Having said that, outside of the section on the fictional character biography, the rest of the article does enough to satisfy me. Also, since we are really discussing 3 separate articles here, I’d very much like to keep the set as a whole.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s fine. The sandbox is in case the consensus is to put it back. We already two editors on the Cain AFD suggest that. But I don’t mind either way. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep for now, as there is no consensus for deletion. There probably should be some merging between this and the Eve and Cain articles, but that should not be discussed in AFD. Rhino131 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Voatz

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

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

notability not established, only in-depth coverage from reputable media like WSJ, Vox, Fortune and CNN is related to the hacking incident, which shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. The WSJ source doesn't even mention Voatz, as far as I can see. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think this one might actually be slightly notable (though I might be misremembering the extensive coverage in crypto sources by people like me). I'll see what I can dig up - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep even though the present article is terrible, and is in desperate need of a rewrite. Voatz is terrible, but their awfulness has been noted in detail for a few years now - a quick google finds Bloomberg (Iowa fail) (security concerns), NYT (security fail, DHS warning), Vanity Fair ("The Theranos of voting"), WSJ (general article). So I think they're notably awful, and we have the sources to write a good article on the topic. Just not the present article - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the points and sources raised by David Gerard are convincing. It does not seem to be just one incident, and there is plenty of coverage as pointed out, so meets GNG. There seems to be a problem of undue weight in the article, but there does not seem to be a policy supporting that this constitutes a reason to delete. Mathias (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Zimbabwean traditional music

Zimbabwean traditional music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I converted this to a redirect, however the creator has contested and re-created the article, it is pretty much an unsourced essay and it is hard to tell what the article is actually talking about. The title could redirect to Music of Zimbabwe. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongest possible delete. This article has NOTHING to do with Zimbabwean music, and appears like it may be a blatant hoax. JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)_{[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5)} 00:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Adding to the nomination, it is a load of WP:OR and possibly a hoax as said above. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing to do with traditional music at all, but the content might be of use in some other article (if they manage to find sources for it). Might be a hoax, we don't know, delete nonetheless. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, not once does the article mention music. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 07:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• The current title should be a redirect to Music of Zimbabwe, but my guess is that the author was trying to write about the backstory of "Kariga mombe", a traditional Shona song everyone who learns the mbira learns to play [41]. It is however an essay and not directly about the song. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing to do with Zimbabwean music. Eyebeller (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, has nothing to do with Zimbabwean music -Xclusivzik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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