Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 19	November 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect speedy. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance allowance[edit]

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

DAB page with only one link jamacfarlane (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G14. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dab page with one link is unnecessary, and there's no content to mourn the loss of. jp×g 12:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Healthcare in the United States in the Twentieth Century[edit]

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

The article is essentially an opinion piece. It was moved from a user sandbox to mainspace. I request that the article, if not deleted, should be moved to userspace. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify Clear violation of WP:NOTESSAY. Based on the article creator's userpage, this article was produced as a part of a Wikipedia-based school assignment. It is important not to WP:BITE the student, but this article is not appropriate for the mainspace. It should live in their sandbox indefinitely. KidAd talk 23:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This looks like a class project which got put into the wrong textbox in someone's browser. I am not sure anything could be salvaged to make it encyclopedic (and the amount of copyediting necessary would certainly turn it into an unnecessary clone of existing articles). jp×g 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the main space prematurely and I would like to move it back to my sandbox where I can edit and rework it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AubreyBushman (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per creator's request and WP:BITE. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. I copy edited the first word before I realized quite what was going on here and went no further. It would be great for the creator to rework it in user space, so per not just WP:BITE but also in the spirit of WP:HERE, this could later make good encyclopedic content and I strongly do not support deletion. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, changing my !vote above per user request. jp×g 17:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Logue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, played only a few games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think she only just falls short of GNG. There's some decent coverage out there but not enough of it is in-depth in my view [1] [2] [3] [4]. If more sources come to light, please ping me. Spiderone 16:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Article needs expansion with improved referencing, not deletion, per WP:ATD. N:FOOTY and its essay N:FPL fail the vast majority of top women's football leagues around the world and is not reliable. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if someone is going potentially deriving notability from playing football and does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 10:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fredericton[edit]

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

This article has the lowest bar for inclusion of any tallest buildings list on Wikipedia; buildings as tall (or short) as 27m are considered worthy for inclusion. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Those that do are buildings that are not known primarily for their height.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Fredericton' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis.
The city is not the largest in Canada nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 27m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Toronto and Vancouver so why are we doing it here?

Previous consensus on similar articles: Thunder Bay, Saguenay, Quebec and Victoria, British Columbia. Spiderone 23:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, buildings are not tall. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:LISTN, WP:RS do not discuss this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings. List does not meet the purposes of WP:CLN. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MILL; also it fails my standards: while there are three notable buildings on the list, no building is over 60 stories, Fredericton only has 58,000 residents and is not known as a resort, and a list for the third-largest city in a province makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to my search this list fails GNG, LISTN, etc. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Wolverhampton[edit]

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

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

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscrapernews, Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Wolverhampton' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis and Skyscrapernews.
The city is not the largest in England nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 40m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in London and Manchester so why are we doing it here?

Previous consensus on similar articles: Blackburn, Woking and Blackpool. Spiderone 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; also, it fails my standards: while the city has almost 250,000 residents, there are no notable buildings linked, Wolverhampton is not known as a holiday destination, none of the buildings are over 60 stories, and a stand-alone list makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to my search this list fails GNG, LISTN, etc. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vyncke[edit]

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

G11 borderline promotional article for a non notable businessman who a WP:BEFORE shows lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Optimizing the google translate, the references used in the article are either mentions in passing, sponsored posts, sources that don’t even discuss the article’s subject & interviews in all this is a WP:GNG fail as well as an WP:ANYBIO fail. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added 4 references with ISBN book number using Google Books. Geertivp (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although both this article and Vyncke have a distinctly promotional tone, I don't think there is any real notability argument based on the coverage in De Tijd and VRT alone. I have added advert tags to both articles. I see that Geertivp produced both articles and that some promotional content has already been stripped from Vyncke by another user and I'd really urge him to avoid to appearance of a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabit Bilali[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, best source is this Spiderone 11:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can only find routine coverage such as transfer and signing annoucements like this and this. Jogurney (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 10:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balchder Cymru[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties or pressure groups. This article is littered with CN tags and has one citation. Seems to fail GNG and ORG, doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and non-notable. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ineffective and run of the mill pressure group. FWIW, my late paternal grandmother was born in Wales and could speak Cymreag. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments above that there is nothing to suggest this group has ever had the level of notability that would be expected for it to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Hull[edit]

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

Hull is a great English city known for many things but tall buildings certainly ain't one of them and this article, in a weird way, actually confirms that. The fact that 40m is the bar set for 'tall' here says it all really. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Hull' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here. The best thing I could find was this article in the local paper.
Only one significant high-rise building under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft. If anything, Hull's days of having tall buildings seem to be over.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:OR.
The city is not the largest in England nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 40m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in London and Manchester so why are we doing it here?

Similar AfDs for reference: Thunder Bay and Macon Spiderone 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Blackburn, Woking and Blackpool. Spiderone 20:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete per nom. I see no reason for this list. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that none of these buildings actually appear in List of tallest buildings in Yorkshire and, of course, none in List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom either Spiderone 21:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation, just a list of redlinks waiting for someone to create nn articles that will eventually end up at AfD. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; also, fails my standards: while Kingston upon Hull has 250,000 residents and there are three notable buildings on the list, it is not known as a resort, no building on the list is over 60 stories, and it doesn't make sense to have such as separate list. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lawrence (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.

The first reference is an essay by Bertram Cohler about men in the gay pornography industry who wrote memoirs. It does contain significant coverage of Mr. Lawrence, and I have no reason to think it unreliable; but WP:GNG requires more than one solid reference. (And the information about Mr. Lawrence is derived from his autobiographical writing, though the essay does contain independent commentary such as criticism of Mr. Lawrence's approach to commercial sex tourism.)
The second reference is a NSFW personal web page.
The third reference is a permanent deadlink; I think it's the same "about the author" blurb that appears on all of Mr. Lawrence's advice columns for OutUK (NSFW).
References 4-6 are more primary sources having to do with Mr. Lawrence's defunct NSFW websites.
Reference 7 is an award roster; please note that pornography awards don't count towards notability now that WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated.
Reference 8 is a puff piece interview/profile in the book Award-Winning Men: Up Close and Personal with Gay Honorees. The publisher is a vanity press.
Reference 9: I don't have access to Best of the Superstars : 2000 : The Year in Sex, but nothing about it makes me think it's an appropriate source for a biography of a living person.
Reference 10 is a directory listing on a prostitution website featuring anonymous user-submitted reviews.
Reference 11 is a forum post, ostensibly by Mr. Lawrence himself.
Reference 12 is another award roster.

The article currently states that Mr. Lawrence revolutionised the field of male prostitution. That is puffery added by Benjiboi, an editor banned ten years ago for (among other things) promoting the pornography industry. I don't see it as a plausible claim of notability under WP:ENT.

I looked for additional sources: Here is another work by Bertram Cohler on gay autobiographies, with several brief mentions of Mr. Lawrence. Here is more trivial coverage (two sentences), also by Cohler. The book Sex Workers as Virtual Boyfriends (a first-person narrative about hiring prostitutes) includes a quotation from Mr. Lawrence and information about one of his books.[5]. The Bay Area Reporter has run two routine announcements about his book promotion events:[6][7]. His two self-published books received a review apiece in the Lambda Book Report. Cheers, gnu 57 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Agree with detailed analysis, above, regarding lack of WP:SIGCOV. I was able to find the same single source [8] as the nominator already discussed, above. Right cite (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User indef blocked as suckpuppet. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with analysis of nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: per the nom's argument, there are 2 book reviews + independent coverage by Cohler. If I were an inclusionist I would argue for keeping. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's assessment of reliable source coverage is correct. Fails WP:BASIC as reliable source coverage is insignificant. Independent reliable sources also fail to support any claim of WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping - appears a lot of folks have done the due diligence to show evidence that the subject merits inclusion. Please improve. And you can always re-nominate it if one desires. Missvain (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Whitehead[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played in a game professionally. I was able to find coverage from The Virginian-Pilot (five featured articles added to the page), but only passing mentions elsewhere, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GRIDIRON and wasn't a notable collegiate football player. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:NCOLLATH as a three-time Division I FCS All-American. See (1) Virginian-Pilot, (2) here, and MEAC. He was also selected as the MEAC Defensive Player of the Year two years in a row. See (3) ESPN. He has received additional significant coverage which includes: (4) Ex-NSU, NFL player Whitehead now a Salem assistant, The Virginian-Pilot, 11/7/14; (5) NSU's Whitehead Tabbed as Top Defensive Player, The Virginian-Pilot, 8/1/09; (6) Whitehead added to watch list for Buchanan award, The Virginian-Pilot, 8/5/09; (7) Looking back, NSU was a good move for Whitehead, The Virginian-Pilot, 9/20/08; (8) "Former Spartan preparing for unclear NFL future, The Viginian-Pilot, 11/20/20; (9) NSU's Whitehead named as a preseason All-American, The Virginian-Pilot, 5/20/09; (10) NSU's Whitehead an All-American 2nd year in row, Virginian-Pilot, 1/7/09. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear if Div I FCS All-American qualifies under NCOLLATH but the fact that he received the honor three years in a row and was named MEAC Defensive Player of the Year two years in a row is an extraordinary achievement and sufficient to establish notability IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I doubt being an FCS All-American or MEAC Defensive Player of the Year meets WP:NCOLLATH, as FCS is basically third-tier amateur American football (after Power 5 and Group of 5 in the FBS) and the MEAC has typically been in the bottom half of FCS conferences this millennium. (Since 2015, the MEAC no longer sends its conference champion to the FCS playoffs, instead playing in the Celebration Bowl. Before 2015, it had failed to send an at-large team to the playoffs in 12 of the previous 15 seasons: 2000–2002, 2004–2009, 2011–2012, 2014.) It appears you've found the same coverage as I did from The Virginian-Pilot, and the subject still needs significant coverage in additional sources to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, NCOLLATH is unclear as to whether Division I FCS All-Americans qualify. In this case, however, we have someone who was recognized as a first-team FCS All-American for three consecutive years -- an extremely rare accomplishment. Further, your dismissal of the MEAC as the bottom of the barrel is misguided. The MEAC competes by choice in the Celebration Bowl to preserve the heritage of HBCU football and to determine the Black college football national championship. And a review of recent MEAC Defensive Players of the Year (Darius Leonard, Darryl Johnson, Javon Hargrave, Joe Thomas, Ryan Davis, Stevie Baggs, Justin Durant, Rashean Mathis, Tracy White) shows what a high-level accomplishment this is -- and Whitehead won the honor two years in a row. These are extraordinary accomplishments which lead me to resolve any ambiguity in NCOLLATH in favor of a finding of notability. This one is worth keeping IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Looks like he was an AP first-team FCS All-American in 2009 ([9]), but he's not listed on the 2008 team ([10]) or 2007 team ([11]). However, he was a three-time first-team All-Conference selection according to his Norfolk State bio. To your other points, yes, the MEAC and SWAC chose not to participate in the FCS playoffs beginning in 2015, but those conferences also had not ever participated in an FCS title game going back to 1978. You can go along with their marketing strategy and say they're "preserv[ing] the heritage of HBCU football" but if they were actually competitive within the FCS division, they wouldn't have had to create their own championship game. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your argument that because other MEAC Defensive Players of the Year are now notable for their subsequent NFL careers, that all players who win the award deserve articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Eagle247's two points above as follows:

(1) Just as in the case of FBS, AP is not the only recognized All-American selector. While I realize that AA claims are sometimes exaggerated, there are reliable sources referring to him as a three-time All-American. I found independent confirmation as to both 2008 and 2009 as follows:

2008: See "NSU's Whitehead an All-American 2nd year in row", 1/7/09 ("Whitehead is NSU's first two-time All-American since linebacker Kevin Talley in 2003-04."). Separately, he was also named to the HBCU All-America team. See here.
2009: Named to the Division I-AA All-America team by the Walter Camp Football Foundation. See here (12/15/09) and here (12/17/09). Also named to the SBN Sports Black College All-American Team. See here.

(2) My listing of other recent MEAC DPOYs is not a case of "OSE". Rather, it was offered in response to your contention that MEAC was a bottom-tier conference and, more importantly, to show that MEAC DPOY is a notable award of a type that should appropriately be covered by NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His Norfolk State bio says he was a third-team The Sports Network All-America selection in 2007 and 2008, and while I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt here, if he were named first-team All-America by any organization, his college would absolutely include it in that bio. So The Virginian-Pilot is correct that he was a three-time All-American, but your assertion below timestamped 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC) that he was a three-time first-team All-American is incorrect, and in actuality not a particularly "rare" accomplishment. I still strongly disagree that Whitehead somehow passes WP:NCOLLATH based on the honors we're talking about here, as a conference DPOY and several second-tier All-Americas are not "national" awards, and GNG has still not been met. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think he's notable under WP:NCOLLATH, was never covered outside of the paper which was going to cover whoever played for that club. SportingFlyer T·C 07:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was never covered outside of the paper which was going to cover whoever played for that club". The comment is wrong on two grounds grounds. First, it wrongly assumes that the Virginian-Pilot gave this level of feature story coverage to "whoever played" for Norfolk State. This is way off base. As a three-time AA and two-time DPOY, Whitehead got an extraordinary level and depth of coverage in the Pilot. Second, it wrongly assumes that he did not get coverage of any type elsewhere. This, too, is off base. While the depth is lesser than in the Pilot, examples of coverage in other publications include the ESPN article cited at (3) above as well as the following further examples (available via ProQuest): (11) MEAC announces 2009 Preseason Football Prediction, Los Angeles Sentinel, 8/3/09; (12) HBCU All-America Team released Tuesday, Philadelphia Tribune, 1/2/09; (13) S.C. State leads Black All-Americas' roster, Philadelphia Tribune, 1/17/10; (14) HBCU All-America Team, Los Angeles Sentinel, 1/8/09; (15) Local Kickers on FCS' A-List, Daily Press, 12/17/09; (16) Norfolk State Spartans, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/28/08; (17) Roanoke Times All-State College Football, The Roanoke Times, 12/18/09; (18) SU's Lee, SCSU's Ford preseason all-star picks, Philadelphia Tribune, 8/28/09; (19) MEAC preview, McClatchy - Tribune Business News, 9/3/09; (20) Pair of Hokies honored, McClatchy - Tribune Business News, 12/18/09 (named to All-Virginia team over FBS players from Va. and Va. Tech); (21) 2009 SBN Sports Black College All-American Team Announced, Los Angeles Sentinel, 1/21/10; (22) Three Panthers earn AP honors, McClatch-Tribune Business News, 12/17/09; (23) HU Puts Four on 1st Team, Daily Press, 12/2/08. Cbl62 (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view any of those, unfortunately. Is there any way you can copy-paste a sentence where he received WP:SIGCOV from one of those articles? SportingFlyer T·C 09:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN piece (item #3) should be readily viewable. If not, it says: "Defensive player of the year: Terrell Whitehead, Norfolk State defensive back. Whitehead is one of the best cover guys in college football. He had five interceptions and 37 solo tackles this season. Moreover, most teams tried to stay away from Whitehead because of his playmaking skills. And still, he had a brilliant year. He was a big reason why Norfolk State had the second best defense in the MEAC." Cbl62 (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the ProQuest database is available through Wikipedia Library. I just got access myself, and it's worth doing. Cbl62 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not have access to the links provided, do any of them mention Whitehead outside of just listing him among another few dozen names? If not, I'm a little disappointed in this WP:REFBOMB that will likely convince !voters who either don't have access to the Wikipedia Library catalog or don't look into links. I'm still looking for at least one other article from a publication besides The Virginian-Pilot that comes anywhere close to the level of focus one of those articles has on Whitehead in order to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the ESPN piece immediately above your comment. While not a feature story, it has 68 words focused on Whitehead -- i.e, far more than a passing reference -- and national coverage as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ProQuest pieces, they were offered to rebut the assertion that he "was never covered outside of the" Virginian-Pilot. They are mostly brief references documenting his winning various awards. I did not suggest that these were in-depth pieces, and indeed the headlines (which I included) reflect as much. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources from Cbl62. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and arguments listed above. jp×g 22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am curious to know why the nominator first made some good improvements to the article, then turned around and listed for AfD. I appreciate the additions made, and they do enough for me to rescue the article. Also, per some of the supporting comments above, I see no reason not to keep.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Concertmusic: This article is one of many created a decade ago by a user with an affinity for Jacksonville-related athletes, and they did not seem to know/understand Wikipedia's notability criteria. I combed through their created articles to figure out which ones are actually notable, and nominated many for deletion that did not appear to be notable (12 have since been deleted through AfD or PROD). For this one, I added sources to include in the article to determine if the subject meets GNG, and when I realized I couldn't find enough to satisfy my interpretation of GNG, I brought it here. I only added a list of sources, no other improvements were made. GNG implies multiple sources are needed to pass the guideline, and I only found significant coverage from a single source. Can you state if you believe the coverage from The Virginian-Pilot is enough on its own to pass GNG, or if the blurb from ESPN.com is enough to satisfy the "multiple" part of GNG? That seems to be the point of contention in this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the detailed response to my question. As may be obvious, I am very much on the side of inclusionism, and I stand by my earlier statement that the article does enough for me to keep. We may simply need to agree to disagree.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: F. Consensus to not keep. Content can be merged from history, if sourceable, by those who like this sort of thing. Sandstein 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fafnir (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent real world coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F unless more sources are found, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable adaptation of the mythological Fafnir, that only made a handful of appearances in the comics. There are currently no reliable, secondary sources being used in the article, and searching for more does not turn up anything of any note - just additional primary sources and a couple of mentions in plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F - More sources were not found. Dark knight 2149 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article or presented here suggest this passes GNG/NFICTION and I don't see anything better than plot summaries. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge here, just comiccruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: F. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temitope Ogunsemo[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable . The awards are trivial, and most of them specifically for junior status--which corresponds to the WP Not Yet Notable. All the references are promotion or promotional interviews, or mere notices of an award. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and no article on the business either. Information seems more appropriate for social media but definitely not Wikipedia. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. @DGG & Anubis3, This is possibly covert UPE & I just left this on the TP of the article creator awaiting their response. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all of above.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ansari[edit]

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

I do not believe that this article meets the WP:BIO criteria and it appears to be a WP:PROMO. I have been unable to find any reliable sources suggesting otherwise. Most of the references are to a book written by the subject of the article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. All the sources that aren't actually written by him barely mention him. A BEFORE search was attempted but I could only find sources about the Christian evangelist of the same name. Spiderone 18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – simply not notable; clear case of WP:PROMO. Schwede 66 02:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clearly WP:PROMO. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable as a martial artist. Most of the references are articles by the subject and the others are, at best, passing mentions. There is nothing that shows the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and I don't see evidence that any SNG is met. As this is one of only two articles edited by its creator, I suspect there is a COI. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional schools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic schools[edit]

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

Pure listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. I see no reason the few notable magic schools can't just be mentioned at List of fictional schools. However, this list has no reason to exist and is just an example farm. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, makes sense to have one list for fictional schools. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional schools or Delete. Together these probably pass LISTN / GNG although even the end product is very crufty. // Timothy :: talk 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as indiscriminate, leaving the most notable entries in a section of List of fictional schools. The concept of a magic school is likely notable (example), but this is not it. We did a similar thing to Far future in fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of fictional schools would be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list can be improved if necessary. Orientls (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Probably needs a clean-up at the very least. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone else, and include the school of wizardry on Roke from the Earthsea series. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth having a list on. There may be a subject here that could be covered by an article built on reliable sources, but we do not need a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the reasonable consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional schools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Iftimie[edit]

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

I don’t really see the claim to notability here. It’s a nice CV, but nothing stands out as meeting WP:BIO or WP:PROF criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC and I don't believe has sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator BlueD954 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 05:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (A. G. Cook album)[edit]

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

Since it has been ~3-4 months since this page was moved from draft: to main namespace without quality review, I think reverting it to draft space at this point would be a bit too much without consensus; hence I am starting this discussion. However, I think this page appears to be promotional and has a bunch of low-quality references, and it may not be ready for main namespace. I'd suggest incubating in draft space until the page has been moved by one of the AFC reviewers. Aasim (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just curious, what do you find "promotional" about this article? The album has been reviewed by numerous notable publications, I'm not sure what "low-quality" references you were talking about. This article seems to be notable, and I think what you want could just be achieved by revising the article, rather than deleting it outright.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewed and covered by multiple RS. Caro7200 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something is wrong with this nomination. The article was created before the album was released, and at that point it may have been a candidate for the AfC process. But the album has now been released and many people other than the original creator have worked on the article. Claiming that it should go back to draft/incubation now would disrespect the contributions made by everybody else; and (reading between the lines) the nominator is insinuating without evidence that some process was violated when it was moved from draft to mainspace. As for the album itself, it has been reviewed by several reliable publications and others have offered verifiable information on its recording and release history. And the "promotional" accusation is untenable, unless the nominator can come up with a way to describe the album's existence and quote its good reviews in some other fashion. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly passes WP:NALBUM, far more than many other album articles. Low-quality references? This has been reviewed by almost every major English-speaking music publication (in addition to those already in the article, there are reviews from The Times, Evening Standard, The Spectator, Sputnik Music, The Wire and the Wall Street Journal). I don't really understand what incubating in draft space would achieve, as the album has been out a while and almost all the information for it will already be available. This is very likely to feature in many "best albums of 2020" lists in a month's time as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clear NFOOTY pass, no outstanding delete votes and no reasonable chance of any other outcome. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Balomenos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has played only a few games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has international caps so is notable. Needs improving urgently. Giant Snowman 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be our guest GiantSnowman :) --SuperJew (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY as has several international caps. Number 5 7 20:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and a basic Google search. Article refs need to be improved + article expanded to include her Matildas appearances as well. ref "WP:NFOOTY failure"? Ok, sure. For the record, the majority of top women's football (soccer) leagues are excluded from WP:FPL. A look at the essay's contribution history will shed light on why that is. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite happy to change my !vote if she does have appearances for the national team, but the reference provided is a pre-match piece that only shows she was in a squad, not that she's actually played. Number 5 7 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [edit conflict]. Even by the dubious and sexist standards of WP:NFOOTY her appearance in seven international matches on the 2008 Australian National Team, scoring goals in three of them [12] is a pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has caps so has played at the highest possible level Spiderone 23:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per keep votes. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, having represented the senior Australian team. Also her knee injury was serious and notable enough to be mentioned in two The Advertiser articles: [13], [14] and I would argue she passes WP:GNG regardless of her international caps. --SuperJew (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY clearly.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPC Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable label with obscure back catalogue. It used to have a lot more bluelinks, but these have been steadily removed after this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lable. Although considering how many labels I have seen with virtually no sources, this seems to not be by any means the worst article we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable label, and another non-notable article by Soul Crusher. Of course there were more blue links because SC decided to swarm WP with non-notable industrial bands, but we got rid of them now so they are gone. And the label has a place in the bin as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazz King[edit]

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

With just 15 press mentions on Google News and a flair of WP:PROMO this Ghanian rap star is probably the candidate for a speedy deletion, but let's give it a chance for a proper AfD. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like many WP articles on "rising" music "stars" from Ghana (and also Nigeria), this guy has media mentions that are reprinted press releases from his management (e.g. [15], [16] [17]), which are then used in attempts to claim that he has received media attention. You could say the same about the "Northern Entertainment Awards" ceremony, which itself receives the same type of PR-based "coverage". Wikipedia should not be yet another cog in this promotional blitz from his handlers. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in full agreement with nom and Doomsdayer. It's a shame WP is full of so many non-notable Nigerian/Indian/Ghanaian music "stars". There are no reliable sources available for these people. Social media pages, PR pieces (like album/song/concert announcements), videos, lyrics sites, streaming links, retail sites and interviews are not reliable sources. And these are everything I find when I search for these people. Not to mention those who create these pages are often COI/SPA editors, they only edit that one article, then they disappear into thin air. In some cases, said user might have other edits which saves him from the SPA accusation, but most of his edits revolve around the wannabe "star" so the promotion is still obvious. Like this case too. Look at the article creator's edits. He has edited other things too, but most of his Wiki activity revolves around this guy's page. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

In no way am l affiliated to the person in the Nazz King article. All this are false accusations but hey who am l to tell the great and might Wikipedia moderators what to believe. Lastly some of you speak of sources not being reliable or holding no notability, yet l clearly see Beyoncé's wiki contributors promoting her latest endeavors but all you CHICKEN out and don't call them out because you think upcoming musicians hold no merit right?.It's sad how most of you moedrators channel out your miserables lives failures to most new Articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsey555 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your "high quality" comment. Very high-brow, very sophisticated. Why don't you learn to sign your comment instead of a comment like this? It would be better for WP. I don't give a crap about Beyoncé, on the contrary you look like you spend a lot of time around her article since you know all of this. And as for your question of "upcoming musicians hold no merit, right?" read the following: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NBAND, WP:NMUSICIAN GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something none of us noticed before: There was an earlier article for this musician with a slightly different spelling of his name, and it was deleted about six months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NazzKing. Near the top of that older discussion, note how Ramsey555 was recorded as claiming that NazzKing was "my page" with an interest in how it appeared in search results. Ramsey555 was involved in that deletion discussion too, in a more subdued fashion but still claiming discrimination against African musicians. His commentary this time collapses into personal accusations, which we can discuss but it still doesn't make Mr. Nazz any more notable as a musician. Also relevant here is the other stuff exists fallacy. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 13:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright let me make life easier for you, maybe this will make you feel like you are really contributing to Wikipedia,,, Go AHEAD and please delete the damn page, no need of having a senseless and useless discussion in the name of appearing as if you are doing something meaningful. Aren't you guys a bunch of prejudicial know it alls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsey555 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silence and Light[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. A deep dig into sources doesn't reveal any coverage, nor any charting or reviews in the typical outlets, just some minor fan blogs. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another non-notable band. Their ordinary and bland name makes searching difficult, but the few results that are actually about them are not reliable, just blogs / re-published articles about them supporting Veterans or whatever. I am not pleased about the sourcing in the article either. There are three sites cited, one is an album announcement which I don't consider a reliable source since it's both trivial and promotional, the other is the band's own site which is not independent, and the last one is just about them supporting Veterans. They have only one album as of yet, and I couldn't find anything reliable about that either, just spotify and amazon. So this is a non-notable band, it's most certainly WP:TOOSOON for them. Or at least per WP:CHEAP, redirect to either of the members' articles (as I see, two members of this band have their own articles). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with Ghost Destroyer and the nominator Spiderone 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Values Party (Sweden)[edit]

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

Barely notable fringe party. Most sources are either self-published or paywalled. lovkal (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tiny fringe party without significance or consequence shown through sources. Geschichte (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a gazeteer of every group that has every called itself a political party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above, and past outcomes; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drevviken Party, another very minor, unimportant party with only local interest. FWIW, I follow Swedish politics through my brother-in-law. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A9 TV[edit]

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

The article only contains primary references and I was unable to find multiple in-depth secondary reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the following sources, which are mainly about the channel getting in trouble after supporting terrorism: Hürriyet [18] [19], Sabah [20], Milliyet [21] [22]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Television stations are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"usually" doesn't mean always. WP:BROADCAST says "most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable." Most isn't all. The thing is to determine if this one is or not. Which is exactly what we are doing or at least what we are suppose to be doing. Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added an article in a scholarly journal and some newspaper references dealing with sanctions by the country's broadcasting regulator. As well, there appears to have been a criminal prosecution that I don't understand very clearly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good improvements have been made since listing for AfD. There appears to be enough controversy around the channel to make it notable, or at least a subject someone would appreciate having an article on here.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Campus of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Thompson Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable building on the campus of UMASS Amherst. The only significant references I can find are pages published by the university the owns the building, a few buildings databases, and this coverage of the commemoration of the building. Not seeing a WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG passage. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the campus if a better source can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but a better target may be University of Massachusetts Amherst College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, which operates in the building. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, WP:MILL building on a college campus. jp×g 03:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either John F. Thompson (politician) or as suggested above.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Jensen's[edit]

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

This article is about a single run of the mill defunct department store in Walla Walla, Washington. The only references in the article are a local news story about a fire and a death record. Neither of which passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that does either.--Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a store. Geschichte (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Weiss[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There are plenty of mentions in passing, but no reliable, in-depth coverage. The best source is a paragraph entry by in a reliable Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita here, but again, it is not just about her, it is just a listicle about "stars of Polish business", and the quality is mediocre, as that listicle is, unsurprisingly, a summary of her resume. She has been included in a number of similar lists, but all others are from much less reliable/niche publications/portals (only two have articles on Polish Wikipedia, and one is so bad - a catalogue/promotional entry - I am going to AfD it there right now), raising further concerns whether this is not just promotion instead of proper journalism. Same for awards, they are all niche (not a single one seems to even have an article on Polish Wikipedia, suggesting a total lack of significance for them). Lack of significant coverage can also be seen in the structure of the article, which reads like a resume, with next to nothing of analysis of significance of the subject. Is having a good career and being mentioned in several minor listicles enough to pass WP:ANYBIO? I have serious doubts. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, covert advertising for ABC Data Group. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve looked at this many times and really wasn’t sure about it. It seemed pretty marginal. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Thomas (soldier)[edit]

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

non-notable military person and musician - fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:NMUSIC. There's no in depth coverage of his career and nothing afaict that would make him notable as a soldier and even less so for his career. While the service is admirable, it's simply not enough for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable under GNG, and no presumption of notability under SOLDIER or NMUSIC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible article BlueD954 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be nice if the editors would follow the administrator instructions and elaborate why instead of writing just delete, I noticed this on a lot more articles that are up for deletion. Next to that I'm still writing some additions. Just added one about his contribution of developing groin protections that have been fielded with some militaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirites (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I literally explained why in my nomination that is 3 sentences long, Dirites. It's on this very page, or did you miss that? Praxidicae (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Did not miss that Praxidicae, I was referring to BlueD954 Dirites 8:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't take advice from you. Why don't you wish something else? BlueD954 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG and meets neither the specific requirements for soldier notability nor those for musician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Road rally. The current consensus is to cover this topic at Road rally, but no prejudice to recreating if a well-sourced article is written at a later date. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot 'n' bash[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with no reliable references since 2004 Majash2020 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources probably do exist for this, but finding them would mean going through old back issues of motoring magazines or getting old books on rallying from the library, which during the COVID-19 pandemic is far harder than it usually would be. This page should probably be merged with Road rally, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - Searching for sources turns up a couple of uses of the phrase, but ultimately very little coverage of the concept. While a Redirect to Road rally would probably be fine, Merger would not be appropriate at this time, as there is no sourced information currently in the article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do exist, and I would add them to the articles if I had access to them, but they aren't online and accessing them during a pandemic is unreasonably difficult. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5: If we were to move this into draft space, would that be of use to you? As it stands the article completely fails WP:V, but I completely understand your pain regarding inability to access off-line resources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually why I suggested a Redirect as an option - it would preserve the history of the current page, at least, for further possible use. Draftifying, as suggested above, would also be fine with me. I would just be against any kind of actual merger or addition of information to the Road rally article until after those sources can be found, due to concerns of WP:V. I have adjusted my bolded recommendation above, though, just to be clearer on my position. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Archinal[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG. I cannot really find any coverage in reliable sources. Tuesday spot on a defunct morning show does not appear to be enough to establish that this individual is notable. Unless I'm missing something. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable vetrinarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Teraplane (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of political families in Indian cricket administration[edit]

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

The encyclopaedic value of this article is extremely debatable. What difference does it make whether members of a particular family are appointed to positions in Indian cricket? The fact that people pointed to such positions may be related to politicians or other members of the BCCI administration is pretty trivial, encyclopaedically speaking. – Pee Jay 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. This is a great example of a list that has both a dubiously notable intersection ("List of brown-eyed CEOs who are less than 6 feet tall" may indeed be citable to RS but why does it matter?) and arbitrary inclusion criteria (what is a "political family"?) It's also extremely short and I don't think much would be lost by its riddance. That said, it does take a stab at asserting notability, which I can imagine being fleshed out into a good article by a dedicated editor. jp×g 14:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I agree, the article is short. I have added incomplete list template so that other editors be encouraged to add to it. However, in my opinion, this should be a stand alone list backed by reliable sources, otherwise it will lead to violation of WP:NPOV very easily.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think it's even worth mentioning in the BCCI article, let alone in a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, There has been plenty of coverage about different people from political background controlling cricket administration. This would easily pass WP:GNG and WP:LISTN ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- I am the creator of this article. This article was PRODed with three objections which I would like to address.@PeeJay:
  1. encyclopaedic relevance. BCCI has monopoly over cricket in India (no WP:POVPUSH intended here, just stating facts) and is the richest member of the ICC. Naturally it's office bearers wield quite a bit of financial power, and in turn influence inside and outside cricket. Some office bearers of BCCI and its member Associations are known faces( Like former cricketers, Industrialists, politicians ). From 2010 to 2014 there have been attempts by the Govt of India to control the BCCI, that have been largely unsuccessful to get through the Parliament. Another interference into BCCI administration came from Supreme Court of India through the Lodha Committee. Its reforms, if they are not being followed, can/should be monitored/addressed by Parliamentarians themselves, and any shortcomings should be highlighted in the public view. Both these events were prominent with plenty of coverage. Therefore this article has encyclopedic value, listing the political control in the cricket administration, whose presence may or may not have been instrumental in keeping BCCI independent of Govt/Judiciary control. Please note the the article itself does not have any of the above allegations and follows NPOV.
  - - I'm sorry, but if that's your rationale for this being a notable subject then it seems to me like you're trying to smuggle a political agenda in through the back door, especially if you neglect to mention the political aspect. If "we need to keep an eye on who gets elected to positions at the BCCI because some of them are related to politicians" is your reason for creating this list, then it fails WP:ATTACK; if you remove that from the article, it loses all relevance, since it's not unusual for people who are related to one another to enter similar fields, especially when the BCCI is apparently a route into more mainstream political offices. – PeeJay 16:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - PeeJay, My rationale to create this article is that it passes WP:LISTN. I was addressing your point about the page NOT having encyclopaedic value. Also, there is no threat, criticism or unsourced material in the article. The tone of the small lead is quite neutral and not negative. I dont see how it fails WP:ATTACK ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I'll let other people decide that then. – Pee Jay 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It seems like a smear piece. There is no smear campaign here. I agree the list is incomplete right now and many more people can be added from all sides of the political spectrum with citations from WP:RS. This is the reason I put incomplete list template on top of the article so that other editors can add to it (like jp mentions above). I will add more names myself to address this. However this does not attract WP:ATTACK or any related reasons to delete the article.
  2. perceived nepotism and corruption. PeeJay pointed out on Talk:List_of_political_families_in_Indian_cricket_administration#Contest PROD that two of the citations, that are statements of Rajendra Mal Lodha, mention nepotism and corruption. I will address this by changing the sources. The article itself does not say anything about nepotism or corruption.
- I would also like to highlight that the office bearers are elected, not appointed/nominated by someone, as described in this nomination. Hence people from political background being in Cricket administration is not trivial, but by design.
- This article passes WP:LISTN. There has been plenty of coverage of politicians and their family members in BCCI and state associations. one example is [23]. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you notice, I haven't mentioned the nepotism or corruption allegations in this nomination, so you don't need to address that further. – Pee Jay 16:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the sources. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unless you'll accept my list of blue eyed wicket-keepers born in towns beginning with the letter Q who bat left handed. If there is a real and notable link between politics then this belongs as a paragraph or three in relevant articles, not as a standalone link. I mean, why would this ever, ever, be a suitable subject for a list? I know people dislike actually writing prose because it's too hard, but, please, if it's actually relevant try doing that rather than creating yet another list about subcontinental cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, conjecture, and the list is so slim that the presence of "political families" doesn't seem like a perennial concept in Indian cricket. Geschichte (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was an important topic there would be an article like Political influence in Indian cricket or, as a minimum, an extensive discussion of the topic in the BCCI article. As it is, it doesn't seem like a suitable topic, remembering that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Nigej (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Article fails to show any political influence. Shrikanthv (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is original research. The references do not really support the actual topic itself. Instead they mention X, son of Y is head of so and so cricket board. There is no actual coverage about the intersection of political families and Indian cricket administration. The topic is also highly specific. We could have infinite articles about such intersections - religious leaders and cricket, chefs and cricket, film stars in cricket administration and so on.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with others above that say that this is an intersection with highly questionable notability Spiderone 12:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Occeus[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of the notability guideline for basketball players. The only sources I can find besides his college-days bio (not really a third-party source) are stats websites and very short notes about his career. We don't have the sufficient significant coverage required by the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per [24] [25] [26][27][28] [29] [30] [31] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He meets none of the notability criteria for basketball players. The references given above and those in the article, while numerous, do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Most of them are routine sports reporting about games and appear in the local press (whether it's for high school, college, or the G-League) or from non-independent sources (like his college). Reports of transactions also are generally considered to be typical reporting and do not generally confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that cover Occeus in reasonable depth, whether a reported transfer or his return from injury, are not what I would consider routine. Records of signings might be routine, but are not if they explain his previous career. Here is another source from his pro career: [32] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like routine reporting of a game combined with an announcement of the league shutting down. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources presented qualify for GNG for different reasons. Several are local sources from his high school days which don't count because of WP:NYOUNGATH. The CBS Sports is a two sentence transactional blurb. The others are blogs or non-independent sources from his college career and the remainder are game reports from his minor league basketball career. There's no evidence here he's been covered significantly by any reliable, independent secondary sources that aren't local high school articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is no guideline called WP:NYOUNGATH, nor is there the precedent that youth sports coverage automatically counts less than usual GNG stuff. This is an argument you've used before and I don't think it works. Second, this this and this cover him in reasonable detail from his college days and are independent sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I meant WP:YOUNGATH, which specifically disqualifies some of the coverage here. The Boston Herald is a game report, which are specifically considered WP:ROUTINE by WP:SPORTBASIC. The Local Headline News article looks like a neighbourhood paper. The WRBB Sports looks like a student radio station, so not independent. Still not close to GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good improvements and new sources added in good faith to rescue the article, which does enough for me.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We generally assume editors are working in good faith (see WP:AGF). That doesn't mean the sources meet WP:GNG or that the article can't be deleted. Papaursa (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase then - the improvements add reliable secondary sources to support the new material added. I have no issue with notability here either.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically do you think are reliable, secondary, and significant? SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6, 7, and 8 in particular clear all of those bars for me, but even the short mentions on CBSSports count as reliable in my book. Maybe more to the point, this to me is a case where there are sources to support the information - and as is often the case, notability is open to interpretation. I think the article provides interesting knowledge, which I enjoyed reading.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I've identified them correctly, one is a game report, which is specifically excluded by WP:SPORTBASIC. The short mentions on CBSSports are also transactional and considered routine - they're two sentences, that's not WP:SIGCOV at all. Finally, the student newspaper isn't independent enough of the subject. I think those are the sources you've mentioned, and none of them pass WP:GNG. Whether you enjoyed the article has no bearing on its notability. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The eighth source devotes several paragraphs to Occeus. Game reports don't count if it's just "Occeus scores 12 points and grabs 4 rebounds", but I'd consider that one significant. As I've mentioned, there are other sources that cover Occeus in detail as well. We do not need to discount his high school years, as GNG supersedes any notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone through this before, but WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes match reports, and WP:YOUNGATH specifically excludes routine high school sports coverage... and those exclusions clarify which sources are WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Your logic doesn't make sense, because it basically says "if a source exists, it counts towards GNG, even when other guidelines say those sources don't count towards GNG." SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I've explained before, Occeus is not a high school athlete, he is a professional basketball player. YOUNGATH applies to players while they are in high school, but is not a disqualification of sources from a person's high school period. Reasonable minds may differ as to what is considered "significant", but you are totally misreading the policy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel P. West[edit]

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

I admit I created this article but I understand now why it fails WP:BASIC. The sources published by the Orlando Sentinel, the Hartford Courant and The San Diego Union-Tribune are all the same article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just FYI, per WP:G7, you can request a speedy delete of pages that you are the author on if you want such that you don't need to nominate it like this. Of course, you're also welcome to leave it up here for discussion, but just wanted to let you know! DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough actually different sources to pass GNG. As I have said elsewhere I really think we should go to making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog 3C[edit]

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

Lacks all notability: discussed at fora and in wikis, but at most a very passing mention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Nothing from the article is salvageable but this source could potentially be used to add a mention in the article about the prototype._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Ars Technica out of WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the kind of stuff I meant when I said "a very passing mention in reliable sources", the full quote there pertaining to 3C is "Sonic 3C is apparently an unreleased version containing Sonic 3 & Knuckles all on one cartridge." Fram (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no worries. I wouldn't call it a passing mention, but it's definitely not a significant treatment. I hadn't looked when I added it. --Izno (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source would probably slot in nicely already at Sonic the Hedgehog 3#Development, right around Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles were originally planned as a single game. However, time was limited and the manufacturing costs of a 34-megabit cartridge --Izno (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - not independently notable. 99% of the article is unusable due to being trivial, unsourced, and informally written, so not even a merge is really necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are some brief mentions of this prototype to show that it existed, I am not seeing anything to show that it is at all notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 3 - Horribly written page aside, this does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 3. There’s very little if anything in this article worth merging, beyond the fact that 3C exists. Elms^super 03:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason I don't know the reason why you guys want to delete my Sonic 3c page , Sonic 3C is leaked and it is exist unlike Sonic 1 Beta , Sonic 3C are downloadable though, and Sonic 3C is Sonic 3 and Knuckles in a single cartridge , but it is different actually though, Sonic 3A is Sonic 3 , Sonic 3B is Sonic and Knuckles and Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles was Sonic 3C. Mightybread98
- As far as I can tell, the beta has not been covered enough in a manner that somebody who is not an avid Sonic or gaming fan would know about. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mightybread, I understand all that. But just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to have its own standalone article. We’re not a Sonic fansite that has its own article for every little thing. If you want to write about this sort of thing, I’d recommend finding a Sonic fansite, though chances are theyve already written about this too. Wikipedia is not the place sort of content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not notable to warrant its own article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jihmi Kennedy[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; he's only had one significant role as Jupiter Sharts in Glory. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our actor notability criteria call for multiple significant roles in notable productions, not just one significant role, they are not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that sources found by Cbl62 are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Renkart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Didn't play pro football and nothing of note in his college play. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article definitely needs work, but Renkart passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Examples include: ; (1) Former walk-on runs the show for RU defense (part 1/part 2), The Record, 10/24/07; (2) Renkart settling in on defense: Rutgers walk-on contributing at safety, Herald News, 10/4/05; (3) Renkart a big hit for Rutgers: Making transition from QB to defense, The Record, 10/4/05; (4) Brains mesh well with brawn: Renkart, Thompson provide strength to RU's linebacking corps (part 1/part 2), The Record, 11/15/06; (5) In the Spotlight: Brandon Renkart, Home News Tribune, 9/8/06; (6) Longshots anchor Rugers' D, Herald News, 11/15/06; (7) Renkart all-around success, Asbury Park Press, 10/31/07; (8) Renkart becomes elder statesman among Rutgers LBs, Daily Record, 4/8/07; (9) Renkart voted in as one of four team captains, Home News Tribune, 8/15/07; (10) Piscataway grad Renkart vying for time on Knights' 'D' (part 1/part 2, Courier News, 8/15/05; (11) Walk-on Renkart rewarded for work ethic with captaincy, The Star-Ledger, 8/15/07 (available for fee on Newslibrary.com); (12) Super Bowl Q and A with former Rutgers linebacker Brandon Renkart: So what's life like on the Colts' practice squad?, NJ.com, 2/6/10; (13) Renkart spelling trouble for Rutgers' opponents, The Star-Ledger, 10/5/05; (14) Renkart gets chance, The Times (NJ), 10/5/05; (15) Brandon Renkart waiting for his time at Rutgers, Woodbridge Sentinel, 9/8/04; (16) Q&A with former Rutgers Football LB Brandon Renkart: Where are they now?, The Knight Report, 8/4/20; (17) Final hurrah for Renkart, Zuttah and Mazan, Home News Tribune, 1/5/08; (18) Piscataway pair finally fall in line, Courier News, 8/16/06; (19) Ex-Chiefs reunited at linebacker, Home News Tribune, 3/26/06; and (20) Renkart a Draddy semifinalist, NJ.com, 10/18/07. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on coverage found about his college play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with kudos to Cbl62 for doing the work to find the sources that establish notability. Looking forward to seeing the article expanded. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit, but don't have the passion to fully develop this article. Maybe a hard-working New Jersey Wikipedian will take it on. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Cbl62's sources. Plenty of sources from his college career. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timoleon Latsios[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only claim to notability, according to the article, is refereeing a qualifying match between West Germany and Albania and then refereeing some UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup fixtures.

Further analysis of sources found:

[33] - mentioned once as the referee in a match that led to a brawl and had to be stopped
[34] - mentioned once; he sent off two players in a match
[35] - mentioned once in another article about the match that became a brawl
[36] - again brief mention in passing as being the referee in that match
[37] - mentioned briefly again for the same reason
[38] - trivial mention

His actual only claim to fame is being the referee of one of many matches of the Derby of the eternal enemies. Spiderone 11:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that this is as of now still a manageable list, as long as it remains restricted to notable people. There is no consensus about whether the list should be split (e.g. by country), but that is a discussion better suited to the article talk page. Sandstein 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths due to COVID-19[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Following this RfC about splitting the list, several editors also made the suggestion of deletion. To quote some (but not all) of the rationales used in the RfC:

"The UK's Office for National Statistics reports, Of all death occurrences between January and August 2020, there were 48,168 deaths due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) compared with 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia and 394 deaths due to influenza. Nobody, I assume, is suggesting that we should be setting up List of deaths due to influenza, and yet here we are trying to maintain that a cause of death that is 122 times more common is remarkable enough to be notable and listworthy."

"death due to COVID-19 was inherently notable earlier in 2020, it is no longer, just as we do not have lists for deaths from heart disease, cancer, or the flu."

"There have been over 220,000 deaths in the United States. I'd think this is no longer as significant as it was when the disease first broke out. In other words, it is too common to be usable as a list. " Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I am generally against removing information from WP, it takes a huge amount of effort to maintain that list properly, and I feel that the relatively small benefits to our project of it existing and being kept up to date properly don't really justify the enormous energy expenditure by so many great editors. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors feel they're expending too much energy on the list, they could simply stop working on it. This is an odd reason to call for an article's deletion. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is no valid reason, the ones who requested AfD just don't want to hear about covid apparently and thus want this article deleted. That's also why they pinged each other to obtain a delete answer. --Pesqara (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesqara:: I hope that you are willing to either defend or retract that accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Pesqara (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well do so then: what evidence do you have that those who consider the list too long to be useful and therefore has ceased to be useful as a list ""just don't want to hear about covid". Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the unbelievable shallowness of their arguments. --Pesqara (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant assumption and a total lack of goodwill then. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesqara - that's simply not true. I started the RfC about spliting the page, with several editors suggesting deletion as an alternative. After about 3 weeks of the RfC open, I then started this AfD to see if there's a wider community consensus. I "pinged" EVERYONE who took part in the RfC. You comment of "the ones who requested AfD just don't want to hear about covid apparently" is utter rubbish. I suggest that if you think something is amiss here, you get together some solid evidence for an WP:ANI post or shut up. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I was pinged after I had already intervened here, having seen the AfD notice atop the page. Deletors apparently had already gathered here instead. I'll just say it's an interesting coincidence. Oh, and "some (but not all) of the rationales" you mentioned are the same "rationale" repeated three times. --Pesqara (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply and demonstrably untrue: there is a message from Lugnots on your talk page timestamped c 12 hours before your forst comment here, and timestamped one minute after he posted on my page. Stop telling lies and casting false aspertions about those who contribute in good faith, even if you disagree with them on this one issue. You owe Lugnuts an apology. Kevin McE (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just hold your breath and see. When the time is right, birds will bite your face --Pesqara (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your response to having been caught out in telling lies about, and making false accusations against, a volunteer here, who has treated you perfectly fairly, is to quote some facile song. If you had an ounce of integrity or self-respect, you would at least apologise and withdraw from this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I commented at the RFC, this cause of death is simply too common compared to, say, death from laughter, and not particularly notable, unlike List of assassinations in Africa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The absolute embodiment of an indiscriminate list (at least, for those not wiki-old enough to remember List of people by name). As of today there have been 1,340,000 confirmed C19 deaths and the number continues to rise; while it may be a viable category, as a hand-maintained (or even Wikidata-generated) list this is as nonsensical as List of people who have visited France. ‑ Iridescent 13:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you wondered why there are only a few hundred individuals listed out of those 1,340,000, if this is a "indiscriminate" list? --Pesqara (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list is large, but it is not indiscriminate. It has a specific criteria for inclusion, and it is timebound. It's unclear why the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths is relevant here - this is a list of deaths of people who have wikipedia articles, which will always be a tiny fraction of the number of total deaths. GabrielF (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It seems that the people who follow that questionable rationale think that this is a list of people notable for dying of covid rather than a list of notable people who died of covid. --Pesqara (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make ignorant assumptions about what I, or anyone else, might think. If you have a sensible reason to support your opinion, present that without derogatory comments on the opinions of others. Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, below. --Pesqara (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you absolutely did not do so witout being derogatory. Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Split The comparison to pneumonia or influenza is flawed. SARS COV2 is a novel disease and this pandemic will last a finite amount of time. It is also an event of great historical significance. Influenza is a type of disease caused by a family of viruses that has been with us for thousands of years. Influenza and pneumonia will always be with us - they are not discrete events. A better comparison would be the Spanish flu, which also was an event of great historical significance, as well as a novel virus and a pandemic that lasted a finite length of time. We have a list of notable fatalities for the Spanish flu. List of Spanish flu cases. Categories are not as useful - their nested structure makes it difficult to have all the information in one place. Their decentralized structure makes them difficult to maintain. They aren't sortable. GabrielF (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is, in principle, useful and worthwhile: I wouldn't have spent quite a bit of time on it, especially in its early days, if I did not think so, but, as I warned in March may happen, it has outgrown its usefulness. Eventually, I would suggest, whether the list survives or not is almost entirely dependent on a judgement as to how long a list can usefully be. 200 names? 500? 1000? 1500? As soon as it becomes necessary to split such a list for manageability, it loses the benefit of it being a list article rather than a category, and many editors have stated that it has reached that stage long ago. In relation to the comments about the Spanish Flu list: the number of people being listed here is approximately 900, and growing, while the deaths noted in the Spanish flu article is about one tenth of that; recentism and opinions on eligibility, factors of Wikipedia that did not exist in 1918, impinge negatively on this list; it is the determination of many editors to ensure that every person they hear about on their local news services is included here that makes this untenable and it is the incompleteness of the Spanish Flu list (arguably a weakness of it) that makes it viable as a wiki article. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The list is huge and will only grow more unwieldy; its same purpose is much better served by just ensuring Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic and the various sub-categories are kept up to date. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that categories can serve as a replacement for lists. Categories are less useful to readers (can't be sorted, require you to click through multiple sub-categories to find information, etc), and are harder to maintain (you can't monitor membership by watching one article, you can't really include a citation for why a person is in a category). A tool that queried wikidata for a list of deaths and then presented results in a user-friendly format would be better, but that's not really something that exists within wikipedia as far as I know. GabrielF (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does, but I don't know how to set it up. Ijon could probably make a URL that could be linked in the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something more along the lines of a template that would run a query on wikidata and then present the results in a nice table. So you would have an article called List of people who died of COVID-19, but there would be no manual editing of that article - when you went to edit all you would see was a template with a query and some presentation options. Then you could have a list that was sortable, had fields like age and brief description, but without the need for manual editing by wikipedia editors. GabrielF (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split to much smaller sub-groups (e.g., List of people who died of COVID-19 in Italy or Earliest deaths due to COVID-19 (i.e., removing everything after approximately April), or else blank and redirect the list to the main pandemic article (and maybe page-protect that redirect). This is no longer an encyclopedic list, and we shouldn't continue maintaining this list, but there's also no need to hide the history from any editor who wants to copy a source to re-use in a different article, make sure that the content is in the linked articles, etc. (For transparency, Lugnuts left a note on my user talk page about this; I assume that he contacted everyone else who had participated in the RFC that precipitated this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I dropped a neutral note to everyone who commented at the RfC, and left a note there to say I'd done that. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously, I'm rewarding your inclusiveness and transparency by voting against your AFD. 😜 WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh, you'd like that, wouldn't you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Split The list cannot be adequately replaced by the simple category, as categories aren't sortable and are unwieldy to use. Furthermore, Wikipedia and its editors can clearly maintain lists of people that are much longer (even if we do eventually have to split them for manageability) -- for example, list of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I can see the benefits of not listing every person who died on one page, but I don't think the list should be deleted entirely, per whatamidoing. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split I know there are similar categories but this list is sortable by age, date and location. I think it could be split by country fairly easily. Every time I look at the list, I find names of people I'm surprised to see, I think the list(s) is informative and helps to destigmatize the disease. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if need be, split. The rationales outlined for deletion, and comparison to making a list of deaths due to influenza, cancer, or heart disease (comparisons which usually come from individuals with a certain agenda, but whatever...), are outright nonsensical. Covid is not a cause of death that has become common, it is a pandemic, a single historical event which in itself warrants such a list, just like the List of Spanish flu cases. It is notable and listworthy precisely because it has killed more notable people in a few months than influenza in decades. And since some people don't seem to get it, I will repeat it there: this is not a list of people who are notable for dying of covid, it's a list of notable people who died of covid. Others have already explained why a category would not be an adequate substitute. --Pesqara (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pandemic remains a singular momentous event, very unlike cancer or the flu, and deaths due to it remain notable and listworthy. The number of deaths is not an indictment of their notability or listworthiness. Brycehughes (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If deaths due to COVID-19 were notable and listworthy this list would have over 1 million entries. Since we limit this list to people who have articles (although a few entries actually go to redirects, whether that is appropriate I doubt), then clearly dieing of COVID-19 in and of itself is neither notable nor list worthy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again? These people are not notable for dying of covid, they are notable people who have died of covid. --Pesqara (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As if we don't maintain lists limited by the noteworthiness of their entries? How is this an argument? Brycehughes (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an extraordinarily useful list. This is a distinct event and the list will likely add few new additions at some point and then can be fine tuned 2604:2000:1382:4C50:803D:6890:C807:221F (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pesqara explained it well so I won't repeat. This is another example of what wikipedia does best and possible only because of our position as the number 1 reference source in the world. Our cumulative efforts are better than any other source. We have people power, we have the legwork available and also the legwork for constant scrutiny of such a list. Breaking it up into more geographical smaller lists should also be done, but to rely exclusively on localized lists necessarily negates its usefulness on a global scale. Yes, editing this long of an article can tax computer and server data capacity. That problem certainly does not advise destruction of the information as a solution. I suggested breaking it into more manageable chunks that could be displayed as the whole article two months ago. I got crickets. Suddenly now, this needs a radical execution? We are a living step in history. We have the technology to document what is happening. What is being proposed is to destroy that historical content, to achieve what goal? Brownie deletion points? Keeping this much of the existing information is inconvenient? Words are beyond me to describe the absurdity. Trackinfo (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that lists and categories both serve two important purposes. Most casual readers do not use categories and the UI for them sucks (no offense intended). This list is about the moment of history we’re in and conveys the loss of notable people in an encyclopedic context. Scarpy (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is already, by definition, a list of notable people who have died of COVID-19, and therefore not indiscriminate. There is already a large number of similar lists on Wikipedia, including for common illnesses, such as tuberculosis. As with all such lists, this one does not assert that the disease is inherently notable, but that notable people dying from it is notable. Phediuk (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful list. The argument that it is hard to maintain is not valid. Lots of things on Wikipedia is hard to maintain and this shouldn't be harder than many other things. And with time this list will be much more manageable. Split if needed. Mason (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful list and lets face it this is a global pandemic which is not only a rare event but a historical one (tragically) and this list is useful. Split if needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it's so much more deadly than the others actually makes it even more notable, not less. Nom labeling this "common" is deceptive, at best. Kire1975 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The key to COVID-19 is that overall it is not actually very deadly. That is why it has spread so fast, and so this is unmanageable while a list of notable people who dies of Ebola or SARS would be manageable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key to covid is that it has killed over a million people already and has become a historic and whorld-changing event, whereas SARS has killed few hundreds and ebola killed in forty years the number of people that covid is now killing in two days. A list of notable people killed by SARS or ebola would be useless, for the simple reason it would be empty. --Pesqara (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a list of people having a Wikipedia article who died of Covid-19, not a general listing of every single victim on the planet. It is a somber reminder of the times we're living, if not else Basil_II (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Split: I agree with Pesqara and Pheiduk's reasons (and I also agree with the people saying that this is a useful list). However, this list might [unfortunately] become longer and too long to read, which explains why I put "split" in my vote, thus agreeing with WhatamIdoing. Either split it by country or continent/region, or by the date of the notable people's deaths (e.g. List of COVID-19 deaths in the Philippines, List of COVID-19 deaths in Europe, or List of COVID-19 deaths (January-September 2020), etc.). I understand the reasons of those who are in favor of deleting this but I would like to reiterate the stance of those who want to keep it: COVID-19 is not comparable to the so-called "common" diseases such as influenza and cancer. Covid is a new disease, unheard of before this year despite being related to other coronavirus diseases. Not to mention that the same disease caused a pandemic of historic proportions, something unseen in the digital era. Vida0007 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as long as the list is for notable people and every entry is reliably sourced, I have no issue with it. It displays the information in a much better way than a category would. Spiderone 17:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if need be, split. Per above. --IndexAccount (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't Delete. I feel this list is important for posterity. Split if must. Jazzhands90 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split or delete. This is still a relevant and notable topic area but an article of this size does not suit Wikipedia at all. My preference is for the article to be split, ideally by country but by month is also a good idea. If there is no will to split, then this article should just be deleted and replaced with a category where all these entries can be placed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as it was the last two times someone nominated it for deletion. Reliable sources cover this, and everyone on the list is a blue link to their own article. Dream Focus 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Flawed nomination.

Using WP:NTEMP (as in "this is no longer as significant as it was when the disease first broke out.") is not an acceptable rationale for deletion
The argument "we do not have lists for deaths from heart disease, cancer, or the flu" shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the disease. Cancer and heart attack will never have a vaccine. COVID is expected to eventually be eradicated.

Banana Republic (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, it is a notable list and it should stay, because the disease is the most important event of our time. Maybe some people on the list might not be so noteworthy, so they can be deleted from the list. If the size of the list is a problem, it can be splitted according to months or 3/6-months periods or according to the countries, etc. LostMyMind (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Too common" is a nonsensical reason to delete as this is what makes the page popular. Our resources then scale accordingly as the page has had over a million readers and over 600 editors to date. And, per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no significant practical limit. Note that we already maintain lists of all deaths: Deaths in 2019 and Deaths in 2020 are among our most popular pages and the latter is especially linked on our main page. Deaths from a specific cause are obviously less of a challenge than those generic lists. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split if necessary, per above. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. This is a notable list, the media covers who died from this, anyone notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have an article can be listed. Dream Focus 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The biggest problem with this list is that it is kept to those with very well diagnosed cases, ignoring the fact that in most locals there are a group of people who almost certainly died, and are thought by their medical doctors to have dies from this disease, but it does not quite meet the stringent requirements. It is also almost certainly a too short list, and tends to more often cover people currently or recently notable, and exclude those people we have articles on who last were truly in the public eye a half century ago. Somehow I suspect there have been a few past olympians who died from this disease and no one has noticed. Also, I think the fact that in several countries this is a significant portion of all deaths makes this too large and unruly a list. Beyond this, no one is really demonstrating why we need this list when we have a category for it and limit the list to people we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand: first you say it should be deleted because it's too short, then you say it should be deleted because it's too large? --Arborea1996 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you do not understand. On the one hand this is a list that is problematic because it is not comprehensive to all notable people who have died. On the other it is just plain too long to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no possible way that such a list will ever meet wp:V using wp:RS to support the asserted cause of each death. At best, the vast majority of entries would always be citing gossip rags. This is not the calibre of content we want in WP. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several clever editors above (LeadSongDog, Lugnuts, Kevin McE, and Iridescent among others). Couldn't possibly be maintained as an article (nor needed); far better as a category. In addition, the paucity of reasonable keep arguments shows the unnecessity of keeping it ~ not to mention some of the personal attacks and ABF by some contributors here which lead me to discount just about anything they may offer; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are roughly 1 million articles on living people in Wikipedia, and roughly 7.7 billion people worldwide, so Wikipedia has one article for every 7700 living people. Based on this ratio, and roughly 140 million COVID-19 deaths, if all things were proportionate, there would be 181 entries in this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are in fact 785 entries on this list. So it appears notable people are more likely to die from this disease than the general public. It probably helps that there are so few notable people under age 18. Also the disease has been most intense in countries like the US where we are overrepresented with Wikipedia entries. In some other countries counted deaths may be disproportionately among the notable. Mexico has acknolwedge its death report is way too low, and some suspect India as well. On the other extreme the lzargest birth-year category in Wikipedia is 1989, so even though those under 18 are rarely notable and the longer people live the more likely they are to be notable considering notability is never lost once gained, our system disproprotionately in reality covers those who have become notable in the 21st century, and so there are probably many people who meet notability guidelines who have died from COVID-19 who no one has bothered creating an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next slide, please. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your calculation is incorrect. If there are 140M deaths and one person out of 7700 is notable, you should get 18 thousands people.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My calculations are correct, I just wrote a number wrong. There are 1.4 million deaths, so my numbers are right. If there were 140 million deaths that would be a much different ball game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some have held up the Spanish Flu list as an example of a good list. It is a horrid list, where most entries are unsourced. In many ways it is a relic of a time when Wikipedia had less belief in verifiability. I think the fact that this list under covers cases of people who were notable awhile ago but have faded from the forefront of public notice is a major draw back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several clever editors above (Phieduk, Pesqara, Trackinfo, and Andrew Davidson among others). It is easily mantainable as an article, and it has already been explained how a category could not replace it adequately. In addition, the paucity of reasonable delete arguments shows the unnecessity of deleting it. --Arborea1996 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do keep it, we should split it by country. A global list is clearly not maintainable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far more suited to a category, category tree or set of intersecting categories. But if it is kept, then it must be split - it currently has 532,520 bytes of markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is of great value. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:USEFUL. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is of great value. Names and faces of notable people on a list are much more concrete and lively than cold numbers. The argument that it takes a lot of work is not really recievable, for two reasons imo: 1) it's not even that much work, you just Deaths in 2020 and then take look at those who have died of COVID-19. 2) if it's still too much of a chore for you, then stop doing it! no one is forcing you. editcount doesn't matter for shit. --Spafky (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The best part is, those who nominated it for deletion never made a single contribution to it, yet they complain that it is uneditable and too hard to mantain. --Pesqara (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another misleading accusation and attempt to discredit editors rather than presenting a meaningful rationale. Lugnuts simply acted on the clear consensus on the talk page at the article. Whether he had edited the article is entirely irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Andy says, this is a sufficiently large list that it would be better handled as a category. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep per reaons listed by other editors above, who said it better than I could. It's of immensely great value. (See comments made by Spafky, Trackinfo, Andrew Davidson, etc.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful/valuable despite its length.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it needs work to split or segment, that's fine, but deletion is patently an absurd position to adopt. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and don't split. Splitting will only make it more work to maintain. It's not even that big. If it gets too big remove detail rather than splitting. It doesn't even really need it's own references? It can serve as an index page that links to the death section of other pages. The inclusion criteria is simple, only include people who had a Wikipedia page prior to 2020. (Though, potentially you could split off a separate list of people who only gained prominence by their role in the situation? But that's unlikely to be justified for anyone outside Hubei?) Irtapil (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil brings up a good point. A major excuse being brought up is the size of the article. As of this writing, there are 934 references. They take up more than a third of the screen space. And one of my pet peeves, how much data is being wasted in the unnecessary reference formatting (that multiplies hidden data usage)? Why are all these references here? Look at the editing patterns: A new entry is made, another editor deletes it because there are no references, and it either disappears or is restored with references. You are making each editor place extra data into the article. We have WP:BEFORE. Before you delete, look it up yourself. In other words, know what you are talking about. But deletionist editors are so eager to pull the trigger that they get conveniently stupid. "Oh, I didn't have time." "I couldn't find it." Bullshit. All of these individuals included in this list have to be notable. They have an article. Put the reference to their cause of death there. Click on the link. By simply removing references on this page we could save close to 50 percent of the data. We ought to have a no reference (with a linked article referenced) policy on all list articles. Amongst a group of supposedly learned editors, we ought to have a no stupidity policy as well. I can dream. Trackinfo (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for a list. If it needs to be split, it could be split by country. PatriceMO1 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could we stop with nonsense deleting requests ?!--Petar Milošević (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article only lists the death of notable people, not all the 1 million people who died. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable deaths is fine.† Encyclopædius 15:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All listings are for notable people, and there is no reason to deplete our encyclopedia's content, especially on a subject as crucially important as this one. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this keeps popping up on my watchlist; there's a clear consensus to close this as keep. Time to get on with it please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SALAT. So long as all the entries are for people with WP articles, it is a useful and manageable list. A split may be needed in the future, but for now the size is reasonable, and hopefully the number of new entries will taper off as vaccines become available. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:A7. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Filim[edit]

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

New streaming platform or application. No indication of significance. Pikavoom (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the reason to nominate my article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallis and Pakodas (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallis and Pakodas: please read WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and explain how this company meets the criteria Spiderone 11:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsese! Why are you so biased? Please tell me the actual process and what content should be uploaded to get the page approved. Please don't nominate for deletion with silly and unconfirmed reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallis and Pakodas (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not only does the app not appear to be notable, the article does not explain why the article should be classified as even significant, and the article's content is extremely biased in favor of this app. I do feel this article is actually eligible for A7 and G11 speedy deletion, instead of AfD. P.S. It turns out that the article was a copyright violation and it was blanked in its entirety with the exception of the word "Filim" therefore, G12 applies because there is no substantial content. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel there's no need to delete this app. It seems genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FILIMApp (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — FILIMApp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly, deleting the Wikipedia page for the app won't get rid of the app from existence. Also, your username looks slightly suspicious... JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's mentioned by several sources but I can only find press release/promo articles in largely blog-like sources [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Note that the content of each article is almost identical. Spiderone 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could also be deleted as G7 as the page has been blanked.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G12 speedy As the article was a pure copyvio. Jumpytoo Talk 19:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been A7'd. It can be closed. 20:01, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Williams[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Initial reason from User:Geschichte was Fails WP:GNG and has played only 2 games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL

I found no evidence of WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search and this source shows that her career was very brief. Long standing consensus that footballers with very brief careers, consisting of no more than 1 or 2 appearances, need to pass GNG. Spiderone 10:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fals NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question "Long standing consensus that footballers with very brief careers, consisting of no more than 1 or 2 appearances, need to pass GNG." For all players? Men and women? Can you indicate the age-old "consensus" discussion you're referring to Spiderone? Hmlarson (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is an example of a male footballer that made two NFOOTY appearances and nothing more. It was deleted. Linked in this AfD are just a small selection of the many male footballer articles that were also deleted for scraping through NFOOTY by the skin of their teeth but completely failing GNG Spiderone 23:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a white English male player? Can you provide an example? Hmlarson (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check the deletion archive yourself? I'm sure there are plenty of non-league players somewhere in there. Jay eyem (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of English males; example 1, example 2 and example 3. No idea on skin colour as I highly doubt there are any pictures of them around. Spiderone 16:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per N:FOOTY. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She might well pass NFOOTY but she comprehensively fails GNG which usually takes precedence Spiderone 16:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with a long-standing precedent with male players, people who just barely scrape by WP:NFOOTY, fail WP:GNG and have no chance of ever playing at a professional level again are not considered notable. Also, the status of the W-League as a fully professional league in 2008-9 is somewhat doubtful. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing precedent with male players, as listed in WP:NFOOTY is that people passing Nfooty pass Nfooty and are notable. The recent push by a small group to change that is not a long-standing precedent. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:NFOOTY that specifies "male" footballers: it applies to all footballers. If there are different standards for different sexes, it has not yet been presented. Jay eyem (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is a redirect a valid alternative here? What would be the intended target? Given that the page has just over 3,000 views in over five years, there doesn't seem to be much utility in this page as a redirect. And Brisbane Roar FC (W-League) would not be an appropriate redirect for a single player with a common name. Jay eyem (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG not demonstrated, WP:NFOOTY failure, and a google search turned no significant coverage. There is no apparent redirect target that would be appropriate either. Jay eyem (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quorn Baptist Church[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason provided. Fails WP:NCHURCH; nothing more than routine database listings and primary sources available; no indication that either the building (per WP:NBUILD) or organisation (per WP:NORG) are notable or historically significant. It is not a listed building and I have searched here and here just to be sure. Spiderone 10:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - It looks like the Grade II listing is here as well, no idea how I missed that when I read the article from start to finish. Apologies for the wasted time with this one. Spiderone 19:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do people keep trying to delete churches in Leicestershire? Anyway, the church is historic, being about 250 years old, and it only took seconds to find an extensive history. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the coverage is obviously extensive, my main issue is that it is written entirely by someone who works at the church, so it's likely to be considered as a primary source or at least non-independent Spiderone 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a primary source. The history lists its primary and secondary sources which include: History of the Baptists in Loughborough 1756–1846; History of the English General Baptists; General Baptist Repository volume 3; &c. There's more to be found on Google Scholar – The Origins of the New Connexion of General Baptists in Leicestershire; Early Baptists in Leicestershire and Rutland; &c. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, it is a listed building, so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. It was actually listed on both the sites you searched as the General Baptist Chapel! The Historic England listing very often does not match the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And note that there are actually two listings as, across the road is an even older building: the original Baptist meeting house before the present Chapel.

"seek and ye shall find"

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac K. Lee[edit]

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

The subject does meet general notability guideline as several of the sources which some have now been removed were to social media platform - Twitter. The credibility of the other sources are also in doubt. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, the individual does not appear to be notable as there does not appear to be significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of the individual. Also, I agree that some of the sources cited in the article are a bit shaky and thus not reliable. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Lee got lucky when a pro athlete noticed his tribute song, but this article relies on sources in which Lee and/or his song are only mentioned very briefly, while talking about the basketball player otherwise. Lee got a few other notices in esoteric communities but there is not nearly enough reliable coverage that is specifically about him. Does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards for music or biographies. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Gallery[edit]

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

Questionable notability, article relies almost entirely on primary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This seems quite a noteworthy (as opposed to notable, in the WP sense) little gallery, actually, and I for one would be sorry to see the article go. But I agree, the references are pretty rubbish (I've just had to mark one of the better ones as failed), and with a name like that, finding more or better sources is all but impossible. So yeah, fails WP:SIGCOV notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I added 3 references but can't claim that either individually or in sum these meet the substantial coverage demanded by WP:NORG. In this as in coverage of other artist-run spaces (both at previous AfDs and in the history of Artist-run space), there's a high bar, excluding what they actually put on, in consequence of which large parts of the ecosystem in which art activities are manifest fall outside the main encyclopaedia-based resources. So I echo DoubleGrazing's disappointment regarding this article on a noteworthy little gallery, and don't see enough for WP:NORG, but would be delighted to revise if someone can find more coverage. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Azizi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR Serv181920 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of bit parts does not make an actor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sean Aaberg. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PORK (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable niche publication, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as ATD: Defunct quarterly Zine. Does not have reliable sources to show historical significance or a significant niche market publication (Fails #2 & #5 of WP:NMEDIA). Primary sources and interviews do not advance notability. Although the Nom is on the vague side there is a notability issue. From searching, to what is on the article, there is also a serious issue of advertisement. Links that only have images and prices can hardly be argued against (logically anyway) as not specifically being sales orientated. A search returns more results of a magazine on pork, the animal and food, and there is more information for "Goblinko", but that is not the title of the article. Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sean Aaberg, the creator.★Trekker (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are NOT relieble , No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sean Aaberg Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a paragraph to Sean Aaberg. Some interesting info will be saved that way.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakalpana Movement[edit]

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

Article is such an haphazard and incomprehensible mess I'm not sure what else I can say about it. If this is in any way notable and reliable sources are somehow available, then this thing needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. Mansheimer (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a week ago I pinged WikiProject West Bengal to ask for participation in this discussion but nobody has come forward so I don’t think the article has any advocates and it is a real mess. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raviraj (artist)[edit]

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

Promotional unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and SNG both. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some claims in the article that the subject has received some awards from Indian central government and some state governments, but award names are missing, as well the sources are nowhere. I'm ready to withdraw the AfD if someone brings some convincing sources. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to disagree the term "Award names missing". Because the first column of Awards table shows name of Award/Title. And I agree that the sources for awards are missing and that will be added shortly. - Ashrafmsc (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be true my friend but "National Award" and "State Award" is not a valid name. You need to name these awards correctly. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only source i was able to find which says he is a recipient of various national awards which is not independent of him. I will vote a delete as this article is not written from a neutral point of view and has been nominated by someone for speedy under G11.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete this is ridiculous and doesn't even need to go through AFD. It's unsourced fancruft. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the major non-neutral content. I brought this to AfD because of some of the claims of national & state awards & the result would be clear cut deletion, I guess. Various other reasons I preferred AfD over CSD. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in actual WP:RS Spiderone 19:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Puthenchery filmography[edit]

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

EN-Jungwon (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: this nomination needs a rationale? AllyD (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Utah. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Utah Honors College[edit]

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

This is essentially a web page abouyt an honors program at a college. I don't think we have ever kept these as separate articles ., nor would there be much to merge except its name; most large public universities have such programs as a common feature, and there seems nothing special about this one. The only third party references is inclusion in a book about the 50 such programs, and one promotional interview in the regional newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate section in the article on the University of Utah. Honors programs are present in several American colleges and universities. The internal structural differences that lead this one to be designated a college are really not enough to justify a stand alone article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, but if this were deleted I won't cry. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The King of Fighters characters. There is a consensus that the coverage available is not enough to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugal Bernstein[edit]

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

This article was promoted to GA back in 2009 when standards were very different. The reception of the character only consists of trivial mentions pulled from reviews and brief mentions in listicle articles that otherwise contain most or all other characters as well. The design section is primary sourced and has no real bearing on notability. By current standards, this article fails WP:GNG and is more fitting for Wikia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the characters list. I say since I'm kinda experienced with this series so I can't provide sources. Still, it's a deletion discussion necessary? Deleting the character rather than merging would be a massive downgrade.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons above - Balle010 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reception section is lengthy, but based primarily, if not solely, on mentions in passing. But some of those at least seem to be more than rankings. It's not great, but is the coverage really insufficient? I'll see what the usual inclusionist find, if anything before I cast my vote, and I'd also appreciate if the nominator would kindly explain why they think the reception section is bad. Did you check if none of the sources cited are in-depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and the majority are single sentences or snippets of sentences cherry picked from reviews and the like. Nothing that demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the character list as per WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reception is quite substantial. It appears this character is asserted as a primary contributor to a rather well known trope in SNK video games. Two published sources in addition to sources from listicles and reviews are cited and quoted, but I am unable to verify them by searching on the internet to verify the nominator's assertion that they are trivial mentions. Standards may have improved but I believe the right approach should be to reassess and probably demote it from GA status, not subject to possible deletion. Haleth (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AFD is the correct place for GA demotion; if this is kept we could go to WP:GAR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying the issue about the article is misidentified, per WP:NTEMP. The nominator's position is that the topic is not notable to begin with, base on a certain interpretation of GNG; I disagree. Notability standards have not changed, but criteria on what constitutes a good quality article has. Haleth (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the sources I can currently access, notability is not shown, and the WP:BURDEN is on the creator. If they can't glean more than a sentence from the source they used, I'm going to assume it's trivial as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the WP:NEXIST guideline asserts that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I don't believe I have seen any guidelines or essays which encourage the notion that cited sources are presumed to be trivial unless proven otherwise. Per an argument made under WP:SEMI-N, notability is a term that covers the availability of sources for an article on a topic, it's not a goal in and of itself, which I've noticed is an ongoing theme with many of the AfD nominations. The practical application is that it is simply not possible to write a coherent, encyclopedic article regarding the subject topic if the existing sources do not sustain it. In my view, the article is coherent and has encyclopedic value with no OR, it isn't a coat track article where reliable sources are used as a distraction from a lengthy in-universe plot section that's of little encyclopedic value. Also, WP:BASIC which is related to the GNG guideline suggests that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial by itself. Fictional characters are not subject to a topic-specific guideline on notability. The main substantial change in standards since 2009 is how articles are judged and assessed on quality, not on notability standards. WP:EMSC suggests that the SIGGCOV guideline leaves the definition of significant coverage wide open to personal opinion and circumstance and that is integral for AfD to not become a rule-following system and to allow for discretion in edge-cases. Haleth (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Sources seem largely trivial Top X lists and otherwise trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) - Concerns better expressed through a GA reassessment or a discussion with the page editors first. Deletion is not a first resort. Dark knight 2149 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without saying where the non trivial sources are that demonstrate it should be kept, this comment is largely meaningless. Deletion should definitely be a resort if the article is non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been demonstrated that the character is discussed by third party sources, and the article passed a GA review at one point. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE, I maintain my stance that this should have gone through a GA reassessment or the page editors (the people knowledgeable on the subject) before being nominated for deletion. Processes exist for a reason. Every policy and guideline also says that "The sources in the "Reception" section aren't the best" on its own is a poor reason to nominate something for deletion (WP:NEXIST, WP:DELREASON, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and the list goes on...). That doesn't reflect WP:GNG one way or the other. As of now, I don't believe it has been substantiated that this topic is "better suited for Wikia" (which in itself is a subjective claim). Dark knight 2149 05:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article passed a GA review in 2009, many GA's and FA's from back then have since been delisted for not holding up to current standards. But nothing says a delist is required to delete if an article is clearly not notable. There were many of these types of WP:REFBOMB articles created then. WP:NEXIST does not apply when all the references are trivial mentions such as: "Omega Rugal topped off the package with one of the most stylish boss designs in fighting history, although more than a few gamers grew to hate the sight of him."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST states "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." Not only does it always apply, but in situations where an article has previously passed a GA test or already has sources that may not seem satisfactory, it is actually more applicable, not less. Dark knight 2149 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources out there that establish Rugal Berenstein as a notable KOF character, including its development so, deleting this despite the number of references already in place prior to this discussion is a step backwards. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The sources seems mentions. Should be redirected. Sabrebofr (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a solid consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the The King of Fighters character list. «=-ias postb□x+=» 13:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the characters list per nom and Tintor2. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as there is some passing mention of this, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Jontesta (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket (comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Iridescent with the following rationale "I'm not comfortable considering uncontroversial the deletion of a page that's been live for 15 years and has that much of a history. This is a without-prejudice decline, feel free to AfD it.". Fair enough, let's do the trial by fire here. This hasn't improved to meet GNG/NFICTION in 15 years, but there is always a chance I missed some good sources. Can anyone find something to save this? Pretty please, no WP:GOOGLEHITS single-sentence mentions this time... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Furher digging shows sourced I missed in the first pass, in particular [44]. The subject is likely notable, despite the abysmally poor fancrufty state of the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this further digging was prompted by this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I found it during my initial BEFORE, just missed the tab and found it few hours later. If I found it before I wouldn't have nominated it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Icon (comics), but point the title to Rocket (disambiguation)#Characters, as the Marvel Comics character Rocket Raccoon is far better known. BD2412 T 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content to Icon (comics), but point the title to Rocket (disambiguation)#Characters, per BD2412._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. There is definitely real world content on the character, but I can't really say if it's separate enough from the main work. It all seems more in line with the development and storylines of that series than the character itself. TTN (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Merge" votes following the nominator's withdrawal seem overzealous and inappropriate to me. Piotrus has withdrawn the nomination. If other people think a merge is appropriate, then they should follow the proposed merge process. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty in the article about her appearances in things not related to Icon, so a merge would make no sense. Dream Focus 18:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nominator wishes to withdraw the AfD and acknowledges that the character meets GNG, so there is nothing further to discuss. A merge should not be considered in this particular discussion per comments by users Dream Focus and Toughpigs. Haleth (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per withdrawal. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the book coverage above and in the AN discussion linked clearly meet GNG. Could it be merged with Icon? I suppose, but I don't really see how that benefits any readers when the character has been shown as notable. As a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia, there is room for this page to keep things clearly delineated and easier to find information truly being sought.
That said, I then propose a Move to Rocket (DC Comics), which still follows the WP:NCC conventions alongside Rocket Racoon per BD2412, and retargetting Rocket (comics) → Rocket (disambiguation)#Characters. -2pou (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources exits to pass WP:NALBUM as highlighted (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 05:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Make It All Show[edit]

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

Non-notable album doesn't meet GNG (as provided sources are not significant coverage on the album itself) or any of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. Merge and redirect to band's main article. Citrivescence (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is notable enough. Exene Cervenka co-wrote a song on it. It also has an AllMusic review. Kart2401real (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The album has received some coverage. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many reliable sources about the album. Kart2401real (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other contributions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Night in San Diego[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Provided references are not from reliable sources, and a Google search and a look at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic don't turn up additional reliable reviews. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. My apologies, I just noticed the film was released one day ago and reviews may appear. -Citrivescence (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick v. MySpace Inc.[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion via PROD on November 28, 2010. PROD was contested two days later. Despite the 10-year span that has passed since the PROD, this article is forever barred from a subsequent PROD, therefore I nominate it here.

The lawsuit was filed in an Illinois circuit court, the lowest court in the state. Cases that are decided in the lower courts are rarely notable, unless they meet the general notability guideline. The complaint was soon withdrawn after it was filed; therefore the court never took meaningful action on the case.

The article cites to two sets of sources: one written by the Digital Media Law Project, and the other written by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Both websites are self-published, and therefore carry little weight in establishing notability. I am unable to find additional sources on Google web search or Google Scholar. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case was apparently withdrawn by the plaintiff one month after it was filed, and thus did not result in any judicial opinion. There's no indication of this case having any lasting impact on anything, nor are there any citations to general interest media sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m having trouble deciding between a Merge or Delete. Would some of this information be useful in the MySpace article? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The sources are self-published, and don't rise to the level of significant coverage of MySpace. I don't think the content belongs anywhere, even in the MySpace article. Edge3 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will also say Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable case, there isn't even an opinion issued for this case, as the petition was withdrawn by plaintiff (as noted above by Metropolitan90). aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 15:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somayeh Mehri[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. Indeed she had a horrible life, but she's not the only victim of violence against women in Iran or around the world. Sources do not establish notability either. Keivan.f^Talk 01:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with you. Subject is notable for only one event -- her attack. See WP:1E and WP:VICTIM. I would also argue that the attack itself does not meet the notability standards in WP:EVENT, therefore the content should be deleted in its entirety. Edge3 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms. As WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Car sprint[edit]

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

This stub article is unsourced (and has been tagged as such since 2009) and has only 1 incoming link. The title is ambiguous with Sprint car racing. There has been plenty of time to correct the WP:OR status. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what's best for this article. In case anyone has any doubts, this is most definitely a real sport which has no connection with Sprint car racing (eg see [51]). However, apart from the Australian circuit version (which I'll get to), Sprints are rarely discussed as separate from Hillclimbing, as they are effectively the same thing except not actually up a hill (the same as what I'll call "British style" hillclimbing that is, which takes place in Britain and Australia and potentially other places which is on much shorter tracks than hillclimbing in Europe or America), and often a minor hillclimbing championship will include some sprints, and sometimes events which probably should be called sprints (due to not being strictly up a hill) are called hillclimbs anyway. In Australia it can mean either the British version or something closer to what might be called Time Attack as it is held on a circuit with multiple cars on track at the same time, or sometimes something in between. I'm not sure if the term is used much or at all outside of the UK and Australia.

Long story short, I do think the topic warrants mention on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how since there are plenty of sources which discuss "British style" sprints (but generally not separated from hillclimbing) but not necessarily (m)any which discuss the Australian/circuit version. A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: How about a redirect to Hillclimbing, with a hatnote there something like {{hatnote|Car sprint redirects here. In Australia, "car sprint" may also refer to a Time attack. It is not to be confused with Sprint car racing.}} Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: The issue there is that sprints are not discussed on Hillclimbing (indeed the only usage is once in the "British Isles" section which requires that one know the term, and in the external links. I don't think it's appropriate to say that in Australia it may refer to Time attack given that sprints have been around much longer than time attack, and both exists as distinct (albeit with strong crossover and similarity, although I'd argue less similar than hillclimbing and "short" sprints as run in Australia) sports in Australia. I'd err on deletion until someone (perhaps me if I get around to it) can add something appropriate to the hillclimbing article when a redirect could be created (and really a lot of what might be added probably belongs more on Hillclimbing in the British Isles), and perhaps add a section to Time Attack but then that still leaves issues of hatnotes and such. Perhaps a merge to Glossary of motorsport terms would be more appropriate for now since any separate article would likely not be much longer than the current one anyway.

In summary, I think delete with either no redirects, or redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms if/when relevant material is added there. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may make sense to add relevant information to the Time Attack and Hillclimbing articles, possibly making this redirect to Hillclimbing as has already been suggested. I am certainly aware of the existence of these events, but I wouldn't know where to find good quality sources to expand this article with. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I don't see anything to redirect. Someone should at least be able to find something on "Car sprint", so we are not advancing neologism, and we would be redirecting what exactly? Being "aware" that something exists (but with no sources) is not a very compelling rationale for inclusion or redirect. Some one sentence dictionary style paragraphs are actually just confusing and makes it appear as a hoax. Otr500 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unsure why you would describe it as a neologism since for example sprint events are discussed in C.A.N. May's 1951 book Formula 3: A Record of 500cc Racing. Admittedly in context the word "car" is not added, this is done more as a disambiguation in this case. I'm not saying the topic is definitely notable enough for its own article, but to say it is a hoax is bizarre. For examples, a "UK style" event in Australia [52] and an "Australian style" championship in Australia [53]. There isn't a huge amount of coverage of events in independent sources however, eg [54] (but then 2020 isn't the best year!). As I said above, I think best would be to add the term to Glossary of motorsport terms and only then create redirects if/when I or someone else gets around to it. I'll probably give reference to the Macquarie Dictionary of Motoring when doing this. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms per A7V2 - a sensible alternative to deletion. Although I'm not convinced deletion is entirely appropriate this provides a suitable alternative from which the article can be expanded again if sufficient independent reliable sources are found. Deus et lex (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to broader subject. This is a dictionary definition at best. jp×g 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Suvorov[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment This reference indicates that Suvorov played an important role in systematizing writing and instruction in Serbian after attempts at assimilation by Austria, also playing a role in promoting Russian influence. Butler (1970), "The war for a Serbian Language and Orthography", Harvard Slavic Studies - Volume 5 24.151.56.107 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Firestar464 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is perhasp not a satisfactory article, but the person who systematised Serbian as a literary language certainly ought to be significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could benefit from more sources and content, but I vote to keep this article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- The reference provided in the article appears to be a biographical encyclopedia. (I needed to translate the page to English, so I can't say for sure, but I'm confident it's a tertiary source.) Tertiary sources, by themselves, generally do not establish notability. (See WP:N, stating that sources that establish notability should be secondary.) The Butler reference cited in the comment above appears to be merely a trivial reference. WP:BIO requires that coverage in any given source must be "significant" or "substantial". WP:BIO also requires that "multiple" sources be provided, yet at this time we can find only one secondary source. (Again, we should ignore the encyclopedia.) Edge3 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While secondary sources are preferred for article development, policy is clear: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability..." WP:PSTS. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've been convinced by the other participants in this discussion. I change my recommendation, and I agree that we should keep the article. Edge3 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, people who are included in biographical encyclopaedias are considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia as well. He also passes WP:GNG, with SIGCOV provided in sources here and here. Also, keep in mind that sources are very likely to exist in languages other than English. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't let's get bogged down in definitions of secondary and tertiary sources when this is quite obviously a suitable historical subject for an encyclopedia article, per books written in both the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets. The nominator here tagged the article as an unsourced BLP, when it's neither unsourced nor a BLP, thus demonstrating a failure to even read the article properly, and made this request for speedy deletion, which is simply ridiculous. Can't we just have some idea of what belongs in an encyclopedia? Or should we just restrict ourselves to topics that are currently trending on social media sites? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ANYBIO. A quick google search in English yields this paper (among others) from the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts which describes him among one of the most famous Russian teachers in Serbia which contributed to Russification of the region. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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