Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 21	November 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impunity Watch[edit]

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

The topic does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. (It appears to be unrelated to a Dutch organization calling itself by the same name). I searched for any reliable independent sources that cover this journal in depth and could be used to build an encyclopedic article according to WP:NOR ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"), but as another editor commented on the talk page, "unfortunately this article does not have any reliable sources that I could find". (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find sources to show notability. Balle010 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syracuse University College of Law Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 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 delete. JGHowes ^talk 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard (software)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article hasn't been significantly edited since 2011. The link to the website is dead. Searches for "mustard microblogging" turn up a couple of brief reviews [1] [2] and a mention as one of 41 open-source projects examined in an academic paper [3], but not much else. The only incoming link from article space is the disambiguation page Mustard. —Bkell (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Balle010 (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I love open-source posting software, this does not seem to be very notable, and the website being defunct makes it virtually impossible for it to ever become notable. It doesn't seem to have been covered at the time, and why would be covered in the future? jp×g 11:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An apparently defunct project, which attracted some passing coverage and mentions around launch, but I am not seeing evidence that the product attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dead software, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. , no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG Spudlace (talk) 06:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. JGHowes ^talk 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Maria Bruno[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has played Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify for WP:NRU) and no sources to suggest he qualifies for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best source is this which is insufficient in my view Spiderone 09:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator, is this article eligible for soft deletion if required? There are no previous AfD's, PRODs or redirects as far as I'm aware. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete looks like player doesn't qualify for either notability mentioned in nom. Balle010 (talk) 04:40, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Panchhi[edit]

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

Indian poet, appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR. None of his works are notable on their own, and while he may be a great poet, he has received minimal attention in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2001 winner of the highest literary award of the Government of Punjab.^[1] Admittedly tracing the influence of an author's work in Punjabi or Urdu is complex in an English-dominant world, but nevertheless, there is multi-year reliable sourcing attesting to his notability and enough to pass AUTHOR and the GNG.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "1947 ਹਿਜਰਤਨਾਮਾ- 27 : ਸਰਦਾਰ ਪੰਛੀ". jagbani. 24 July 2020.
^ Service, Tribune News (12 October 2016). "Awards for poets Sardar Panchhi, Tanveer". The Tribune.
^ "ਉਰਦੂ ਦੀ ਜਨਮ ਭੂਮੀ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਰਦੂ ਨੂੰ ਦਮ ਨਾ ਤੋੜਨ ਦਿਓ-ਸਰਦਾਰ ਪੰਛੀ". Quami Ekta. 13 May 2011.
^ "ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵਲੋਂ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਵਿਭਾਗ ਦੇ ਨਵੇਂ ਸਲਾਹਕਾਰ ਬੋਰਡ ਦਾ ਗਠਨ". Hindustan Times (in Punjabi). 3 June 2020.
^ Service, Tribune News (17 September 2019). "Urdu poet apologises for 'offensive' remarks on Punjabi language". The Tribune.
^ "JKAACL holds All India Urdu Mushaira". KNS. 28 January 2018.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per above Balle010 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was honoured with the Avtar Jandialvi Memorial Award which makes him pass ANYBIO.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing one more round of comments. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:31, 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Kwame Bediako[edit]

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

WP:PUFF. No effective coverage. Fail WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes article looks good. Seems like it originated from the editorial team and not a 'contributer' article. And maybe a couple of other sources are good, although I'm not sure if they're RS. Hmanburg (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lady: Peace Hyde. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article states that she's a correspondent for Forbes, if I'm not mistaken then I guess that's from the editorial team right? Hmanburg (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep made a copyedit. I agree that the Forbes article shows notability. Balle010 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Forbes article does not show notability . It's an interview where the subject is permitted to say whatever he pleases about his own company. That 's PR, and it remains PR no matter where the press agent gets it published. Itn terms of the GNG, it is not actually independent. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round for the sake of generating further community input. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was conferred with a lifetime achievement award but the source provided is an article written by a contributor. Lacks indepth coverage.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, DGG, and lack of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Losada[edit]

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

After I created Jesús Enrique Lossada Municipality and was looking for the corresponding Wikidata item, I found that another user (now blocked) had created this stub on the same municipality back in 2007. I did not find it earlier because "Ciudad Lossada" (i.e., Lossada City) is not the name for this municipality; rather, it's the name of a sector (i.e., neighbourhood) in the nearby city of Maracaibo (Google Maps), most notable for being the site of a failed urban housing project. (Coverage in Spanish: [4], [5])

Redirecting "Ciudad Losada" to Jesús Enrique Lossada Municipality would therefore be misleading. It would also be wrong. Aside from the spelling mistake, I have not seen any source call this mostly rural municipality a city. It is definitely not a city in the formal sense: according to the Spanish Wikipedia, cities in Venezuela must have fewer than 25% of their population working in agriculture.

Given there is no need to leave a redirect, and there is nothing really left to merge to the article I wrote, I propose a simple deletion. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a redirect would be terrible, but this is clearly wrong and needs to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to clear things up. Balle010 (talk) 04:43, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Evans (diplomat)[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources. Article previously had sources and not-sourced information, but for various reasons (primary and not usable on BLP or secondary but not reliable) that information has been removed by Woodroar, Ryfuszzzz and Schazjmd.

– Gbear605 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gbear605 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO due to no coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. He is (apparently) a professor but doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:PROF, either. Woodroar (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two people named Colin Evans who we also have articles on, and the Colin Evans who writes books about forensics, all appear to be notable. But for this one we have no evidence of academic, political, or general notability, even in the pre-cut-down version of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources showing notability. Balle010 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one source is not enough to show notability, and being a trade representative is not a default sign of notability. In fact, no diplomatic post gives default notability, we need 3rd party sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- can't find much in the way of reliable sources for this guy. I don't think they exist! And prima facie he does not seem to meet GNG. jp×g 05:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF. Alex-h (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails everything. BlueD954 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only information that the NYT article provides about the band is that they are from Annapolis and that they made a cover of I am a Rock. That's far below the bar set by WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hated[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2008, article tries to present the band as more historically important than it really was. They actually have one reliable but brief retrospective mention as an early unknown emo act ([6]), but contemporary coverage is dim except for a very brief listing in a 2002 book on 90s alt-rock ([7]). The article's lengthy Discography section actually shows a fairly small group of songs popping up again and again in re-released demos and compilations. Modern coverage consists of the usual retail and database sites and even those are scarce. Note that searching for this band is tough because there is at least one punk band with the exact same name, a rap group called The Hated Crew, and various others. See also the faulty article for the related band Three Shades of Dirty. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a myspace fan page is never enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per John Pack Lambert – GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having looked through both of the articles nominated together (this one and Three Shades of Dirty) which I !voted delete on, they seem very similar. Unlike the other one, this has a few sources online... most of them seem to be rather dull, although they do confirm its existence and try to show notability... oh, what's this?? one of them happens to be the... holy CRAP Lois!! It's the New York FrEAkIn Times!!! jp×g 05:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference between reliable sources and significant coverage in the notability rules. The band got ONE FrEAkIn paragraph in NYT, Lois, in an article that was not even about them but about their genre. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom , No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 17:59, 1 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three Shades of Dirty[edit]

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

Short-lived local band that only released one demo album and got very little contemporary coverage. Long after their breakup, they were dimly remembered by a few bloggers (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) and were listed very briefly in a 2002 book on 90s alt-rock ([11]). Can find nothing else except for the typical retail and database entries, and even those are scarce. Interested voters may also want to see the article for their predecessor band The Hated which displays similar issues. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct, small-time band. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, just like The Hated. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, no reliable sources, one album, no pizzazz. jp×g 05:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lacks coverage by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 11:39, 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 2018–19 NFL playoffs. There's a consensus here that the content is about the 2020 game and so the article is mis-titled, and that the best solution is to redirect to the article where the title topic is actually covered. One !voter suggested the redirect could alternatively be to the specific section of the target discussing the 2019 championship game, but no others commented on that suggestion; discussion on that could continue at a relevant talk page, if desired by the participants. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFC Championship Game[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator, other championship games created by the same user were moved to draft space by a different NPP patroller. This game is already adequately covered at 2018–19 NFL playoffs, and it appears we only spin out standalone articles for playoff games if they're notable for some other reason (Music City Miracle). SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018–19 NFL playoffs or, more precisely, 2018–19 NFL playoffs#AFC: New England Patriots 37, Kansas City Chiefs 31 (OT). Since it's a logical search term, a redirect makes more sense than an outright delete. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect looks good to me.Balle010 (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that this article is actually mis-titled. The content of this article appears to actually be about the 2020 AFC Championship Game, played on January 19, 2020, in Kansas City, Missouri between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Tennessee Titans. Not sure if that changes anything here, just thought I'd bring it up. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. If we were concerned with the content, then the redirect target would be 2019–20 NFL playoffs, but given the title I think the redirect should remain as noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018–19 NFL playoffs. Regardless of the content, the title should refer to the 2019 match. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be the best solution operationally.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leeon Jones[edit]

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

An actor that appears to only have had a single role in a notable film, Attack the Block. Searching for sources on him only turns up information listing him as a cast member of that single film, and so he fails WP:NACTOR as well as the more general WP:GNG. The article was nominated shortly after its creation in 2011, but that ended with no consensus as no one participated in the discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability across movies. Balle010 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even according to IMDb, which really will include anything. Bit of a shame, since Attack the Block was a great movie, and he did well in it, but it's untenable to have articles for people who were literally only in one film. jp×g 05:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the criteria says multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable apart from its parent institution ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seeing as the institutions are only notable because of their parent institution, I think a merge or redirect would be appropriate. Balle010 (talk) 04:46, 23 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]

Redirect all, merging as appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All All the departments in the university are split into seperate articles, as other universities do on Wikipedia. Why was this nominated, when it is such a common pattern? I could point you to two dozen similar university articles. They is hundreds of university articles that do the same. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many other similar articles about non-notable topics that should also be improved or deleted. We have been very lax in this area. If you believe that these specific articles should be kept, your argument would be strengthened by citing Wikipedia policy or by finding and adding sources to these articles that clearly establishes them as independently notable. ElKevbo (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Without question, as it stands this article needs heavy-handed revising because its sources are all primary, lending a somewhat promotional tone. There is barely a passing mention of the alum whose name it bears, for example. Because under WP:NEXIST, an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet, I offer 3 insependent sources below that help establishing WP:GNG. There are more, but I have run out of time today. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/21/us/johns-hopkins-receives-50-million-endowment.html?searchResultPosition=1

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/64331344/scholarships-honor-6-hopkins-alumni/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/64330629/hopkina-plan-to-change-paymentt-for/

I respectfully disagree that those sources pass WP:GNG. I further disagree with the implicit assumption that a college of an otherwise eminently notable university must de facto be independently notable. Some colleges have rich histories and traditions and are unquestionably notable. But other colleges are administrative aggregations of departments and other units with little or no shared history. We have to come to terms with this immense imbalance of notability of colleges (and other units such as departments and institutes) at notable universities. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ElKevbo: Why do you think it is not-notable when Johns Hopkins is one the largest and best medical teaching hospitals in the United States? [12] It puzzles me some somewhat that these are being nominated. Generally speaking all majors university departments if they are part established universities are notable, and as far as I can see these are. They may be promotional, but promotion doesn't mean deletion. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If there is an established exception for colleges of notable universities, please cite it. If there is evidence that these specific colleges are independently notable, please provide it. ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ElKevbo: If you see promotional content in an article, cut it right out. Be Bold. Do it. We are not here to represent the various facets of society as a representation of their needs and wants. We are here to represent facts and knowledge. Only. So if you see a lot of puff, cut it out, whole blocks, paragraphs, sections, even the whole article, except the lede, which I've had to do in the past, if it is particularly bad. Somebody will be back along to rework it, particularly if it is a paid article. If it is not, then it better with out it. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've begun trimming and replacing promotional text with relevant history items cited to RS. It's a start, and others are invited to join the fun. For such a renowned institution, it's appalling it was written bereft of independent, secondary sources. I'm confident more sources will be found. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:50, 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 redirect to Loveyatri. Missvain (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Sharma[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything helpful that would help the article meet GNG. The subject also fails WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect to Loveyatri. (Edit: following the discussion below, I'm persuaded that the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR.) I approved this draft article from AfC after careful consideration. Here were my reasons:
- Technical reasons: I think this article crosses WP:NACTOR. The first section of WP:NACTOR covers individuals who have had significant roles in multiple notable productions. At the last AfD, the subject had none. Since then, he has been the lead actor (significant role) in a major film and (multiple) a major music video (titled Manjha, a Google search of which yields at least 4 independent news publications discussing it) (notable productions).
- In the next year, he will appear in another notable film titled Guns of North. Caveating that WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I think it is not worthwhile to delete the article right now, even if one isn't convinced that he hasn't yet crossed the notability threshold, because he will clearly and uncontroversially cross it in less than a year. This is different from the position in 2018, when the subject was to be in a single major upcoming production, since a single production doesn't cross WP:NACTOR.
- Non-technical reasons: I accept that he doesn't meet WP:GNG independently. He is, in fact, discussed in the tabloid media plenty, but his notability is inherited from his wife and brother-in-law. That said, it was an important consideration to me that a large number of people will search for his profile looking to find out who he is and it would be a shame if Wikipedia couldn't aid with that.
- For these reasons, I think this article has a place on Wikipedia. I appreciate the annoyance that it may have been created before for self-promotional reasons, but I think that deleting it now would be a subversion of the notability rules, a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, and an unproductive formality. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would make still a case that the subject is not individually notable, and notability is not inherited. As Ab207 commented below "the subject doesn't have significant roles in multiple notable films", and thus doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and GNG is very far. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 08:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - AafiOnMobile, Ab207's analysis is incorrect because they have omitted to mention the music video Manjha; that makes two productions. I've tried to explain as clearly as I can in my first point why he fulfils each requirement in WP:NACTOR. I also understand that one cannot justify a Wikipedia article on the basis of inherited notability. My argument was to use it as a reason for erring in his favour if he only narrowly meets the notability requirements. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Kohlrabi Pickle: Music videos don't contribute to actor's notability, because they typically have no acting involved. Also, except for Salman Khan praising Sharma and Saiee Manjrekar, I haven't found any reliable sources that can establish the song's notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ab207: But that's surely not the case here – his role in the music video is as an actor. I've focused on the notability of the music video rather than the song, and I've seen a few sources refer to it and the actors in it: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Admittedly, they're tabloid sources, but I figured that that's the kind of publication that gives attention to music videos. It's also received 43 million views on YouTube. I know that doesn't make it notable automatically, but maybe the combination of the two (a large number of views and attention from entertainment desks of newspapers) does. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Kohlrabi Pickle: I wonder what kind of acting skills one could show in a music video of 4 minutes. Unless reliable sources provide critical commentary on the subject's acting in the video production, it doesn't contribute to WP:NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ab207: How do you know that actors need reliable sources to provide critical commentary on their acting before the production can contribute to WP:NACTOR? That is new to me, and certainly it is not intuitive from the guideline. If that is the standard, then WP:NACTOR is nugatory, because that would fulfil WP:GNG outright. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kohlrabi Pickle: That is exactly the point of NACTOR. When reliable sources provide some insight into the subject's acting skills, we'll have something to write about them without involving in original research. Without that, the article becomes nothing but a mirror of IMDB. In any case, the above references which are mostly press releases, do not aid in the song's notability, so there's no need to dwell on it. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: But how do you know? The words of NACTOR don't say that at all. In fact, they explicitly only require a significant role in multiple notable productions. That is different from requiring critical commentary on the subject's acting skills. Press releases are statements to the press, not by the press. None of those are press releases. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlrabi Pickle, The keyword here is significant, which can only be judged by the coverage in reliable sources. Secondly, those sources which say the first look is out/song is out are WP:ROUTINE which have no bearing on notability. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ab207 We don't need a source to tell us that a lead actor's role = "significant", but perhaps you were referring to "notable" instead. That would make sense, provided that the coverage required is significant rather than critical commentary on acting skills. I take your point on the sources being routine and therefore not bearing on notability. I was not familiar with that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlrabi Pickle, We agree on something finally. Glad having a discussion with you, Cheers! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ab207, likewise! I've withdrawn my objection to the deletion. Thank you for engaging and see you around. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loveyatri: The subject clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR with a single notable film, considering Guns of North hasn't even begun filming. The article can wait until the subject becomes notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loveyatri- Only one notable acting credit so fails NACTOR. Coverage around the music video is routine and doesn't contribute towards establishing his notability as an actor, imv. Sunshine1191 (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article should remain on wikipedia. Ayush Sharma is not a megastar, however, he will find enough work in Indian Film Industry (bollywood) to be noteworthy. He has done one mainstream lead role in film Loveyatri already. OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loveyatri. Does not meet either WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, and given the article's history, protect the redirect so that the article cannot be recreated without admin approval.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Marriott Pinnacle Downtown Hotel[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A prominent landmark in downtown Vancouver, the venue for many notable events, as the sources show. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication whatsoever that it is a "landmark", and most hotels in city centres host conferences. Does not pass WP:NBUILD; it's just another hotel in a city with quite a number of them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The hotel has hosted numerous important events. It is also one of the largest structures in Vancouver (not that these are not common in Vancouver). 122.60.173.107 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the 7400 Marriott hotels. No indication of being notable. Entirely generic brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. None of the sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Notability is not inherited from events. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a nice, normal, hotel (wish I was there), not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm on the surprised side, but I can't find any coverage of the hotel in significant sources - it even took out an advertisement to announce its opening instead of receiving the normal level of coverage in the newspaper I looked at. I'm surprised there's not more information about a 38-storey building, so if you have actual sources which discuss the building and not just a list of skyscraper directories and a couple events which have been held at the hotel, feel free to recreate this. SportingFlyer T·C 00:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill hotel, nothing showing when it was built or if a famous architect designed it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NBUILD and GNG Spiderone 16:17, 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. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theweek[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper from Oman. The article is unsourced. The article has been sitting here since 2006. There hadn't been any sources added ever since. Searching is also difficult, as "the week", even if written as one word, is not a special or outstanding phrase, so there are numerous other results with these words included. It doesn't help that there is another newspaper named The Week, so most of the results are about that instead. So I tried searching with "Theweek Oman", finally some sites are available that are actually about this paper, unfortunately they are not independent at all. The results were the following: the paper's official site, and their facebook, pinterest and twitter pages. The rest of the results are stuff like the words appear separately, like "the week in Oman" or "this week in Oman" and the like. So I couldn't find anything reliable about this paper. Is it notable? I don't think so. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching "Theweek" AND "Oman" I was able to find two reliable sources discussing an incident which the paper was involved with in 2013. The two sources are the UK version of PinkNews and Reuters, which explain how Theweek published an article about Oman's underground LGBTQ scene which then resulted in a Theweek editor being sued by the Omani government, and Theweek publishing an apology for the story. The Reuters link is here, and the UK PinkNews article is here. The reason why I wrote this as a comment rather than an argument for "Keep" is because I'm not sure if two reliable sources is enough to warrant keeping the article, since I really cannot find any others (and it appears the OP had trouble finding sources as well). --PubSyr (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To answer part of the OP's concerns about the proper way to refer to this source, it appears that the proper way to refer to the newspaper (as is done in Reuters and PinkNews) is as "TheWeek" - one word, with the initial "T" and medial "W" capitalized. --PubSyr (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmm, the language situation here is interesting. This appears to be an English-language newspaper, but my understanding is that Arabic is the lingua franca in Oman. There's no Arabic version of this page, but I find it plausible that there might be some Arabic-language coverage. @PubSyr: the sources above would probably only count as one, since it's for the same event, but IAR I'm inclined to !vote keep, since a publication with more than 150,000 weekly circulation feels sufficiently notable to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment per above. –Cupper52^{Talk to me!} 20:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are actually plenty more sources if you dig. Per previous comments there are plenty of articles about that dustup in 2013, way more than two in-depth articles in WP:RS (I'll just cherry-pick the first few google hits, but there are way more: 1,2,3), but that could be vulnerable to being just WP:ONEEVENT. However, there is far more coverage than that if you poke around. Here are circulation numbers and a brief comparative discussion of it in the context of Oman's publishing scene. Here is business coverage of it that suggests it's notable for being the first newspaper in Oman to do something or other related to circulation auditing. And here's coverage of its circulation and niche in an Oxford Business Group report (sadly only semi-online, but easily enough content included in the google preview to tell that it's in-depth). That's just what I could find in the first few google hits, if you hit put your shoulder into it I'm sure there's more out there. So WP:GNG is easily there if you look. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard Dawkins. Consensus is that this is not independently notable. Content can be merged from the history; if that is not done, an RfD might be in order. Sandstein 09:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerin oil[edit]

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

Article refers to a parody essay that was published in an unreliable source and otherwise received a brief burst of attention before disappearing. Whatever coverage it attracted was really more about atheism and criticism of atheism as a whole, and did not provide significant coverage of "gerin oil" as a stand-alone topic. Nor is the comparison between religion and drugs a novel concept, having already been covered substantially at opium of the people. There is nothing in the sources to support a separate article about the "Gerin Oil" essay and a reaction to it, nor has this parody invoked received lasting reception to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the subject passes WP:FICTION, all evidence it is WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What exactly is your definition of "fancruft"? I am not seeing it from the article. Haleth (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Dawkins. Clearly not notable. A real, honest-to-FSM relic of what kind of stuff passed muster on Wikipedia in 2005, isn't it? Look how far we've come! jp×g 05:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Richard Dawkins, whose article surprisingly has no mention of this at all. WP:Before reveal discussions of this topic from a few reliable sources from the 2000's, so it is a notable publicity stunt by Dawkins as a satire-tinged criticism of religion, but not a notable topic in itself that warrants a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 08:21, 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 Withdrawn by nominator / Keep as rewritten - Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-terrorism in fiction[edit]

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

This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. Maybe an article about the overall concept of ecological resistance in fiction could be notable and discriminate. But creating this topic as a list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fundamentally cannot meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, due to it being a vaguely defined plot device (list includes anyone who vaguely battles for or against the environment), and due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Definitely agree on the possible potential of a prose article, but this list can be TNT’d without anything being lost. TTN (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the stub state of the prose version of the article is a suitable enough alternative to let the topic build from there. It might be good to look into merging it somewhere should that end up being its maximum growth potential later on, but that can be handled at that time. TTN (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST
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...
When one makes such a search, sources seem easy to find. For example, What Is Called Ecoterrorism; Crime Fiction and Ecology; British Terrorist Novels of the 1970s – Environmentalists and Conservationists: Terrorising the Countryside; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Eco-terrorism in fiction exist, and a list is always more useful than a category since it can have more information in it. The BBC list it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/Eco-terrorism_in_fiction and its covered elsewhere as well. Dream Focus 01:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. The list is vague and overbroad, and completely unsourced. Even if we were to add some sources, we would need to remove the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and effectively start over from scratch. Would not object to this topic being re-created as an article about the concept, instead of an indiscriminate list. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like with Far future in fiction, the topic is notable, but this is an indiscriminate list with no salvageable content. I.e., WP:TNT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this will always be an incomplete list, it is still a valuable one. Balle010 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jontesta once again fails to give a discernable reason for deletion. The rationale in the nomination:

Ignores WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST.
Mischaracterises WP:GNG by admitting that the topic "could be" notable if the article was better written. In actuality, notability does not change based on the quality of the article.
Justifies deletion by listing off problems with the writing.

AfD is not clean-up and deletion is not a go-to remedy. Per WP:PRESERVE and Jontesta's own statement, the legitimate solution here is to rewrite the article. And WP:NOEFFORT is not a rebuttal. Dark knight 2149 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In its current, revised state. When I initially saw this AFD yesterday, my initial thought was the same as the Nom. While the actual topic was probably notable, the fact that the current article was completely comprised of unsourced information meant that it should not be kept due to simple reasons of WP:V - we simply cannot keep unsourced information on the encyclopedia. However, it seems that since then, User:TompaDompa has already begun the process of eliminating the unsourced information and replacing it with examples described in reliable, secondary material. In this state, it is perfectly acceptable, and serves as the foundation for the more comprehensive article on the topic suggested by even the current Delete votes. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article by Lawrence Buell and the Darlington chapter linked by Andrew Davidson are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Michael Ziser's chapter in Terrorism and Narrative Practice is also likely to be useful, as is Marta Puxan-Oliva's chapter in The Routledge Companion to Crime Fiction, which cites Buell, though I don't have access to the latter. I agree that this should be a prose article rather than a list of examples, but it's a notable topic whichever way it's written (and, credit to TompaDompa, the article is much better now than it was when nominated). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listing works of fiction wherein a particular plot point appears is what TV Tropes does. I agree with the nominator and those arguing in favour of deletion that the list was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though the topic is suitable for a prose article. To this end, I have edited the article such that instead of looking like this, it looks like this instead. Since these two versions are not in any meaningful way the same article—though they both share the title Eco-terrorism in fiction—this is effectively the same thing as a WP:TNT delete and do-over from scratch (except the edit history hasn't been deleted); the current prose article is to the previous list article as Climate of London is to List of rainy days in London. I think this should be a satisfactory solution to all involved based on the comments so far. Pinging @Jontesta, TTN, Shooterwalker, and LaundryPizza03: would you care to weigh in on this? TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for editing and for understanding the issues here. The difference between Climate of London and List of rainy days in London gets at the standard we should apply here. One is a encyclopedic article and the other is a list of arbitrary original research. I'm hesitant to call a WP:TNT during an AFD satisfactory, because it's very easy for people to ignore consensus and revert this the moment that no one is looking. But that's not a slight against you personally and I want to assume good faith of other editors out there so that we can move forward. The new article does have a better scope now and we won't have any issues if it stays that way as it expands. I'd ask that the closing admin note that there is a consensus to rewrite this, even if the rewrite has already been done. (Or if you're fine with that I'll close it myself.) Jontesta (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing no objection to this and I think we can mark this as some combo of keep/withdrawn due to the rewrites. Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic per the recent changed by TompaDompa Spudlace (talk) 06:24, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMO Tower[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What sort of WP:BEFORE searches are you doing? This building easily passes WP:GNG through a newspapers.com search, which has archives of the Arizona Republic stretching back decades. SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources found, the article needs better referencing. This is one example on its construction (when it was known as the Dial Tower). MB 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the newspapers.com source above, as well as others, do show good coverage. Article does need improving, though, of course Spiderone 08:08, 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 merge to Inhumans. Sandstein 22:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrigen Mist[edit]

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

This fictional substance has received no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which aren't enough to meet the WP:GNG. Even what few passing mentions that can be found are only WP:PLOT details, but Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT plot summaries, and we can't write an encyclopedic article without coverage of its real world significance. Jontesta (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked into sources on the Mist specifically yet, but at the very least, it seems it would be appropriate to Redirect to Inhumans, where it is already covered a bit. Rorshacma (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the Google Books link, there appear to be 2 general Marvel Universe guidebooks, as well as a book on Agents of SHIELD season two which cover this in detail. Failing that, merging to the Inhumans article seems reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Inhumans - There is at least enough coverage for a merge.

https://screenrant.com/marvels-inhumans-the-terrigenesis-ritual-explained/

https://in.pcmag.com/marvel/119230/inhumans-nuhumans-and-the-terrigen-mist-a-list-of-all-a-marvel-fan-needs-to-read

https://www.cbr.com/marvel-terrigen-mist-facts-know/

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-54369448

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5997383/inhumans-explainer-marvel-movie

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/x-men-death-of-x-reveals-first-mutant-death-by-terrigen/

https://comicsalliance.com/marvel-inhumans-movie/q+

https://www.gamesradar.com/amp/ms-marvel-set-photos-give-us-a-first-look-at-kamala-khans-live-action-debut/

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/marvels-avengers-ending-explained/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/agents-shield-simmons-fate-season-794933

Dark knight 2149 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above or merge to Inhumans per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inhumans (TV series). All sources presented above are just plot summaries, only one mentions the topic in the heading (the CBR one) and it is a low quality listicle. Redirect is the best WP:ATD here, and that's being generous - this is pure WP:FANCRUFT with zero analysis/reception/significance. Do ping me if better sources are found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You know is was a thing in the comics world and in Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as well, right? That's the problem with trying to pick a redirect target for a fictional element that has appeared in multiple notable fictional settings. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Terrigen Mist is primarily associated with the Inhumans. It appeared in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. because the Inhumans appeared in it. Dark knight 2149 05:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have strong feelings about a redirect target, and I think I intended to link to inhumans (comics) rather than Inhumans (TV series) anyway, so I am fine with that being the preferred target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - The above are a bunch of plot explanation articles or trivial mentions with no commentary in sight, so they're useless. This fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge in the interest of consensus, with most !votes mentioning one or the other option. I don't see any sources that provide anything more than trivial mentions or plot details, which means there isn't enough to meet the WP:GNG. But even some amount of primary material can be WP:PRESERVED in the context of another notable article (with inhumans (comics) being a logical choice with established notability), with an appropriate level of merging achieved through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inhumans: Fails notability. Sources in article are all primary and the content is OR / SYNTH / PLOT so there is nothing appropriate to merge. // Timothy :: talk 01:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - there is some information here to WP:PRESERVE and it would fit nicely at the Inhumans article. Archrogue (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the other option would be to merge since this either belongs in Inhumans or in a separate article, former approach seems best to me to avoid crowding. Artw (talk) 17:23, 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 21:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. Wodehouse minor characters[edit]

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. None of these characters meet our WP:Notability guidelines separately or as a compilation, as they are not mentioned in any sources that can be found, except as passing mention. With a few exceptions, combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. Jontesta (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's assertions are false as the content is detailed in sources such as Who's Who in Wodehouse and A Wodehouse Companion and so passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. See also WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source for a huge list like this in no way demonstrates significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page already has more than one source and more sources are suggested above. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Minor" denotes that they are inconsequential to the audience of a general encyclopedia. They can be easily summarized in prose if context is desired. Character lists are supposed to be the gathering of necessary fictional context of important characters for the purpose of not clogging up plot summaries. This is not such a case, and there are no sources showing general notability otherwise. TTN (talk) 17:12, 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 Forgotten Realms#1990–2000. Sandstein 08:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Troubles (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This fictional element is not covered anywhere in reliable secondary sources, which means that it cannot meet the WP:GNG. Current article is largely unsourced or primary sourced. A search brings up some passing mentions, but no out-of-universe context to create something that is WP:NOTPLOT. And those passing mentions in the plot already occur in other articles. Jontesta (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forgotten Realms#1990–2000 where it is already covered. I'm not finding much in non-primary sources that goes beyond plot summaries. If sources can be found, the article could potentially be restructured to be more on the real world products that made up the event, rather than the fictional events themselves, the same way the article on The Sundering was. But unless sources allowing that can be found, Redirecting to the appropriate section of the main Forgotten Realms article is about the best that can be done. Rorshacma (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Restructuring the article the way you suggest would be a good way forward if we can find the sources, so I support that. BOZ (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as sources cannot be found to meet the WP:GNG. Redirects are cheap and this seems like an acceptable WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forgotten Realms#1990–2000 per Rorshacma. // Timothy :: talk 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forgotten Realms#1990–2000 per Rorshacma and TimothyBlue. A major plot point for the setting and still relevant and useful as a search term. Haleth (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this fictional event passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Piotrus, fails GNG and nothing to merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Weiffenbach[edit]

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

Contested prod. There may be another reference but being a Hugh Schoo teacher whose main claim to notability is that she taught several people who have wiki articles does not make her notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability despite the WP:INHERITED argument that the article is attempting to make. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The deprodder claimed that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but has not produced them, and I didn't find them. Notability is not inherited, and the article as stands looks like an A7. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I normally refrain from voting on deletion discussion when the subject is deceased since Wikipedia is overly focused on the living, but this is absurd. High school year books will from time to time give much coverage of teachers, I am guessing even more so in the past, but that is not a source we should use to show notability. Nor is one article in a local paper. The claims that she influenced significantly those of her students who went on the be notable is not really supported by any sourcing. Being a teacher of someone who went on to become notable only rarely is grounds for considering someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. If someone had been an advisor at a school and supervised someone’s dissertation or say, Pablo Picasso credits someone with encouraging him to be an artist, then MAYBE. But that isn’t the case here. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GlowTag[edit]

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

The game was never released, and it hasn't seen any coverage since it was announced. In my opinion, it's pretty safe to say a game listed as upcoming for a two-generation-old console probably won't be coming out. Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, lacks sufficient sources. This game isn't merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources available to establish notability and, just as importantly, to build an article from Spiderone 21:07, 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. Withdrawn by Nominator JGHowes ^talk 01:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tadhg Ó Cuinn[edit]

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

An article on an author that is completely absent of reliable sources. The article starts out by saying that "little is known of Ó Cuinn", and that certainly appears to be true as I have been unable to find any kind of in-depth information in reliable sources. Both he and his book are mentioned briefly here and there, but there is no kind of coverage that I can find that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - Per comments below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many articles on medieval rabbis and other figures where little is known about them but their authorship of important works. In this case O’Cuinn is the author of a very important work that has been the subject of sustained scholarly attention and there are plenty of sources discussing it, including 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The third link is just the actual text of the manuscript itself, as translated by Micheál Ó Conchubhair, rather than coverage of it. I found the first and fourth links during my WP:BEFORE search, but did not think that the website the first one was hosted on is considered a reliable source, and the fourth is one of the ones I was speaking of in my nom, when I said there were some brief sources that mentioned his work. That third source, however, looks to be a definite good one that I had not seen before. Since it shows the deletion is not as uncontroversial as I had initially thought, I will withdraw the Nomination. Though, I am still wondering if it may be better to rename and restructure the article to be about the text, rather than the author, as it seems that most of the coverage, and most of the content of this article, is on the book rather than the writer. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. Mccapra (talk) 00:43, 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. Missvain (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Gran Plaza[edit]

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

PROD declined in 2009 citing possible sources. Eleven years later, I still can't find sources that establish notability. There seems to be a mall or several (but not a chain) under this name, but they're run of the mill listings. StarM 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help we have one article on one of these, not the brand. eswiki has es:La Gran Plaza Fashion Mall, which is about the one in Guadalajara (and uncited), and es:La Gran Plaza Mazatlán. The ones in León (our article) and Guadalajara are co-owned. Worth noting: the Fort Worth TX mall has an article, La Gran Plaza de Fort Worth, but is not related to the Mexican mall chain. There is also es:Gran Plaza, an actual plaza in Spain, and es:Gran Plaza 2, a shopping center in Spain.

As to León, I just found a full 2019 article that describes it as something of a dying mall, having lost its apparently largest anchor, Fábricas de Francia. This 2018 story puts its square footage at 50,000 square meters (538,000 square feet). The occupancy rate was 30 percent when Fábricas closed.

I'm going to add these sources and an infobox to the article. Gran Plaza should be a disambiguation page (with "La Gran Plaza" as a redirect), this should probably be La Gran Plaza León, and the sources I've added tell me this will likely meet WP:GEOFEAT on cultural significance. Keep. Raymie (t • c) 02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here is a summary of the sources:
- "Pierde impacto el centro Comercial La Gran Plaza" - routine mill coverage of the mall's troubles
- "La Gran Plaza, nada es para siempre…" - routine mill coverage of the mall closing
- "Futuro incierto para la Gran Plaza tras el cierre..." - routine mill coverage of the mall's troubles
- "Cierran Fábricas, sigue Gran Plaza" - nothing here, redirects to home page.
- "Cierre de Fábricas de Francia deja abandonada la Gran Plaza" - routine mill coverage of the mall's troubles

There is nothing that shows this meets GNG or NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL - run of the mill mall. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 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 keep. JGHowes ^talk 02:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Science Day for Peace and Development[edit]

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

PROD was disruptive removed by an IP editor: very irritating. Here was my rationale: No secondary sources suggesting notability, nothing in the article itself suggests notability. This is not the kind of thing that has any inherent notability.

Note also the huge number of tags: this is not salvageable. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please note, PROD templates can never be disruptively removed as that is what they exist for. If someone removes it, then it is disputed and a deletion discussion must take place. Please make sure to read WP:BEFORE. Nothing on Wikipedia has inherent notability, it is all about finding reliable sources. In general, an article can be incubated if it is in disarray and requires substantial work to be ready for the namespace. All that is required to pass notability is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources: Here is an article from the United Nations and another, certainly counts as at least one source, so if anyone wants to take the time to find one other reliable source among the ocean of references that exist to the topic on Google, then there is a good argument to keep the article. There are MANY newspaper articles on the topic, but I do not normally work with newspapers and so am not sure which are considered reliable sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will be happy to look into this article and topic over the next 1-3 days to see if I can find and add sources and references. Based on a cursory search, there seems to be enough material to improve and save this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added several sources to the article to illustrate that there is no lack of reliable secondary sources available to cover notability. A basic search located over 7 million hits, and I used just the a few of the first twenty hits. The article still needs some work and cleanup, but I believe there is little doubt that it should not be deleted, but improved. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:29, 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuscleTech[edit]

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

No significant coverage. The articles two sources are passing mentions, and WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything. Company doesn't have an article, so not suitable for merging Vahurzpu (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2007-03 Designer Whey Protein delete

Keep. New York Times wrote articles on the effectiveness of studies about MuscleTech's products [17] and how a bodybuilder lost his contract with MuscleTech after admitting to using steroids in Bigger, Stronger, Faster [18]. Two journal articles discuss a lawsuit between a distribution company and MuscleTech [19] [20] and the National Post writes on the scrutiny these lawsuits have in Canada [21] and the inner workings of the company before it was sold to Iovate [22]. I think this amount of coverage allows this to pass WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the points raised by Z1720 and the extra coverage on [23] [24] [25] Mathias (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per above comments. VocalIndia (talk) 05:43, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson, Arizona[edit]

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

Yet another passing siding where I find little evidence of anything much. As with Colfred you can see the slight swerve of the paralleling road, but other than a swath of irrigated farmland on the south side of the road, there's nothing here, and topo maps before the 1950s show nothing but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom, just another railroad passing siding. Not to be confused with Fort Tyson 50 miles to the north. MB 18:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass-produced non-populated place. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, a notability prerequisite for inclusion of any place, as a non-populated place. The only thing of some notability is that Union Pacific uses a siding, that was inherited from Southern Pacific Railroad (one stretch runs from Yuma to Pheonix), for storing hundreds of railcars especially in the area that includes Tyson, Growler, and Kofa. These railcars do not add to the population (probably near zero) and there does not seem to be any sources to show historical significance. Otr500 (talk) 13:47, 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Rishidev[edit]

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

Fails GNG, not sure why this wasn't deleted after the discussion around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Sardar. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was one delete vote (in addition to nom) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Sardar. I disagree with the notion that shortest person in x country is inherently not notable 1 2. Either way, the subject of this AfD passes GNG. The article should stay.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that AfD was, nevertheless, Delete. So why wasn't it deleted? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was for Prakash Sardar, and Prakash Sardar was deleted per consensus. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you look at the sources they do not actually state she is the shortest woman in Nepal, they say she might be. 2 short mentions are just not enough to justify an article, and being the shortest person in country x is not a sign of notability. We are not the guiness book of world records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what she is (shortest or not); I care that there have been articles written about her in RS/IS. To be clear, there are 10 references now, ranging from Jan 2018 all the way to 2020 - all are articles focused on her, not passing mentions. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you saying things in the Guinness Book are not notable? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!. I created both the articles. One was deleted based on a single vote and another seems to tending towards a keep . Of course, I want to Keep it because it passes WP:GNG which the deleted article of Prakash Sardar also did. Chinese references was surprising to me..great!!. But anyway, Wiki is a weird place! because there is no concrete rules for deletion, and policy is like politics- can be bent in either way. nirmal (talk) 11:58, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La June Montgomery Tabron[edit]

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

Fails GNG, basically a CV with no evidence of notability. A CEO - No well-known and significant award or honor, no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 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 09:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Baccalaureate School[edit]

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

Promotional article WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being a clearly promotional article that does not pass any sort of notability guideline. I wasn't even able to find the usual name drops in school directories or passing trivial news coverage that a lot of schools have. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have good sourcing on this institution. I also am very hesitant to apply rules developed for schools that are 9-12 or 10-12 that we have found even over broad at that level onto K-12 schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elle LaMont[edit]

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." not demonstrated by this article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of very minor roles does not add up to make an actress notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is pretty, but not notable for WP. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR criteria through work on Flay (doesn't have a wiki article, but has sufficient reviews to be notable: [26] [27] [28] etc., reviews indicate she is the lead) and Strings (female lead - as indicated in review cited in the article in filmography as well as [29]). This meets the bare minimum of 2 (multiple), but you could also try Mercy Black (Austin Chronicle lists her as 4th in their "starring" list). I get that meeting an SNG is not always sufficient for an article to be kept, but it's disingenuous to say that she's only had minor roles in non-notable films. Samsmachado (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the references clearly show this is something notable enough that reliable sources cover it, Also I have added few additional references to the article. Myselftokyo (talk) 04:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoe (character)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fairly recently created comic character, and not one that has actually garnered any kind of notability yet. I searched for sources both under the "Tomoe" and "Techno Golem" names, and outside of primary sources and Marvel fan wikis and databases, there really is nothing much outside of plot summaries, many of which are only a couple sentences long. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may also consider this speedy but we need to add secondary sources to this article. ~Cupper (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: T. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How many more years are we going to be cleaning such WP:FANCRUFT? Zero evidence of notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Llanelli A.F.C. season[edit]

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

User:Number 57 had their PROD contested because the article went through the WP:AFC process. The concern still remains that this article does not fall within the scope of WP:NSEASONS and there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV to suggest that this passes WP:GNG. Spiderone 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify NSEASONS is not exclusionary. This nver should have been accepted at AfC, needs much better sourcing in order to demonstrate WP:GNG, and probably won't get there, but it's worth a shot. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to be fair, this was actually declined at AfC three times for lack of sources. I'm really surprised that it passed the 4th time. Spiderone 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't have been accepted. At the time it had one source, which was the club's website. This used to be a regular problem – articles being created that clearly failed various notability guidelines. Things have improved a bit now, but even recently I have seen some rather dubious stuff getting accepted, hence why I now pay a bit more attention to recent submissions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts. Number 57 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prod was four years ago, too - assumed it had just been accepted without looking into it. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and points raised above. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 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. Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant P[edit]

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

Moved out of process for a second time after being restored to draftspace. The page has had multiple declines and in the last instance was rejected as lacking notability. Issues raised throughout have not been addressed. Lacks sourcing and search did not reveal any hits. Eagleash (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:14, 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: There are still no comments other than the nom
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail to establish WP:GNG Spiderone 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 keep. JGHowes ^talk 02:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble.ca[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG, being associated with notable people doesn't give weight per WP:INHERITORG/WP:INHERITWEB, and fame/userbase≠notability per WP:INHERENTWEB. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem here isn't that the publication fails WP:GNG; it's that because it's been around for 20 years a lot of its GNG-building coverage doesn't Google well (Google is useless for finding media coverage older than a couple of years) and has to be retrieved from news archives. On a ProQuest search, however, I have this up to ten footnotes and counting, which is more than enough to salvage it. This isn't a topic that fails our notability standards, it's just an old article that didn't get improved to keep up with the evolution in our content standards since the article was first created in 2004, and it's now been significantly repaired. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article establish GNG. I count at least two reviews of the website itself. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I thank Bearcat for improving the article, judging from the additions made much of the coverage is pretty WP:ROUTINE and wouldn't count for WP:NORG. IMO, websites are organizations and should have to meet the appropriate guideline. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources found by Bearcat are enough for a GNG pass. The reviews of the website itself would clearly not be ROUTINE coverage in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:28, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notarize (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article. This is the first and largest company allowing electronic notarization. They are the company behind Adobe's Sign platform. The broad business coverage I identified including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Inc., Fortune, NPR and both Boston and Washington Business Journals demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think scope_creep's nomination would have been a lot more convincing if they had given more explanation on why they think it fails NCORP, and left out all of these other policies and guidelines which are, in my opinion, simply not applicable. I think the articles in WP, NYT, NPR and WSJ add up to significant coverage in multiple R,I,S sources. PJvanMill)talk( 22:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR are as applicable as any deletion criteria, particularly this instance in NCORP. The article WP, NYT, NPR and WSJ are no more than reflections on announcement of funding, and they all fail NCORP in one way or another. scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - routine coverage based off press releases. Creator also reeks of a paid editor with no disclosure, looking at that account editor history.Jilljoejack (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Sock. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted comment The above user has been blocked as a sock created to vote delete in AfD discussions on articles I created. Can I strike the comment so it's clear to the closer? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely to strike through them if they are socks or spa's. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new editor jumps into deletion discussion with more than a passing knowledge of notability and disclosure guidelines. Likely a sock. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll go through a review of the references tomorrow. They are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review of the references:

* Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age

* This N.Va. start-up wants bring public notaries into the mobile economy “We’ve got profitable economics from day one,” Kinsel said in an interview. A description of its operation. Fails WP:ORGIND Interview style article. Fails WP:SIRS Reliable but not in-depth.

* [30] Not specific to the proving notability.

* Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary “If the notarization had been digital, there wouldn’t have been the issue, Kinsel said. Looks like a fail on WP:ORGIND as another interview for article. Reliable but dependent source.

* Need something notarized? Virginia startup says its new app will help customers avoid the hassle "This can be a real pain point for people," Chief Operating Officer Adam Pase said of the process of finding a notary. Description of the company, description of its operation, when it started. Looks as though it is from a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Reliable but not in-depth. It is a blog.

* Notaries Are Starting To Put Down The Stamp And Pick Up A Webcam "I don't think people realize how important of a part of the economy notarization is," says Adam Pase, co-founder of Notarize, one of the companies that remotely connects signers and notaries. "Despite the fact that there are so many [notarizations], the industry really hasn't changed much in literally centuries. It certainly hasn't kept up with the digital economy." Another interview style ref. Fails WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:SIRS. Dependent source.

* Notary startup winds down Arlington hub amid restructuring CEO Pat Kinsel said in an email to the Washington Business Journal last week that Notarize established a presence here three years ago, explaining Virginia was crucial to the company because it was the only state that allowed remote notarizations. Fails WP:SIRS. WP:ORGIND. Reliable but dependent and not-indepth. A press-release.

* E-doc Verifier Notarize Launches Competitor to DocuSign Classed as dependent coverage by WP:NCORP. Effectively Non-RS.

* A Will Without Ink and Paper Detailed and in-depth analysis of many different types services similar to Notarize. However only a small paragraph is denoted to Notarize. “I think of the Sumner Redstone story,” Mr. Kinsel said, referring to the 96-year-old media mogul who has been at the center of a battle for control of his personal fortune and stake in Viacom. “You look at his signatures. They’ve gone from this beautiful hand-scrawled signature to basically this line.” Such a deterioration of a signature is often an indiction of diminished capacity. Only tangentially specific to proving notability. Two small paragraphs, in an interview style setting.

* [31] Pat Kinsel, founder and CEO of Notarize, tells TechCrunch that 90% of people start searching for homes online and 60% apply for mortgages online, Junk ref. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS.

* Boston-based startup signs ‘game-changer’ partnership with Dropbox Essentially an announcement of partnership. In an interview, CEO Pat Kinsel called the deal a “game changer” for Notarize and valued the partnership at “several million dollars.” Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGIND. Dependent Source.

* Redfin and Notarize Team for Online Homebuying Pat Kinsel, Founder and CEO of Notarize, said, "Our closing solution is a natural fit for Redfin because their customers are accustomed to a digital, mobile product Announcement of partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Dependent Source.

* [32] An announcement. Fails WP:NCORP Another Techcrunch ref. Non-RS.

* Coronavirus Forcing Home Buyers to Scramble to Close Deals

There is coverage here, no doubt about it. But a lot of it either junk like Techcrunch, routine announcements e.g. partnerships, interview style articles that fail ORGIND or SIRS or stuff that looks like it came from press-release, or is some other dependent source. I can't read the WSJ's articles but wouldn't be surprised if they were as similar quality consisting of routine WP:MILL information. At the end of the day it is a small private company that has no need to be on Wikipedia. It is entirely non-notable and the only reason that it is getting any notice is that it is updating old processes from an old industry, like lots of other companies do that don't have articles. The whole article reads like a description of its lifetime operations. It is entirely non-notable scope_creep^Talk 09:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of reliable sources to shoot down, including the Washington Post, NPR and the WSJ. The first WSJ article is about how revolutionary the company is and discusses a refi using their product. The second discusses how they are going to process $100 billion in transactions this year. Not a small company IMHO. I'll be happy to send the articles to you if you can't read them, but hopefully you won't vote on what you can't see. I also hope you're not suggesting any company that disrupts an industry shouldn't have an article, just because there's a lot of disruption going on? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains many sources proving the company exists but nothing about the importance or notability of that company. It's very promotional, primary-source, and press-release. Using Wikipedia as a fleshed-out LinkedIn is not the one. doktorb _words^deeds 09:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: Please identify a single press release or primary source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources:

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36] Non specific to this proving notability.

Most of this information has been lifted verbatim from the companies blog or from press-releases. The idea that they don't have a large PR budget and don't issue press-releases like every other startup in existence, which is usually a condition of the funding, would be disingenuous. It not genuine coverage you would get with an old fashioned journalist. Its mostly just collected from the web, from blogs, from interviews, Snapchat/WhatsApp/email sessions and what the company formerly puts out as press releases. Almost the exact the same information we would collect. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the above that have WP:ORGIND next to them are primary + Techcrunch entry which is low-quality muck. scope_creep^Talk 22:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of these four allegedly primary sources shows the following independent journalists behind them:

[37] By Tina Reed – Staff Reporter, Washington Business Journal

[38] By Catherine Shu - Writer - Catherine Shu has covered startups in Asia and breaking news for TechCrunch since 2012. Her reporting has also appeared in the New York Times, the Taipei Times, Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal and the Village Voice.

[39] By Natasha Mascarenhas - a venture capital and tech reporter at Crunchbase News.

[40] Leena Rao - a journalist who has written over 750 articles for Fortune [[41]]

Clearly these are all independent, third party sources, contrary to the allegations of poor sourcing made in an attempt to delete this article. The article easily passes WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources. I'll look for some more info to add now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly @Timtempleton: they are established sources or names, but what are they actually publishing? If they are puff-pieces, promotional, rehashed press releases, or otherwise related, then they are not independent. You could have 100 sources but if they're all rehashed or reheated promotional stuff, or passing mentions within longer pieces, then that won't cut the mustard. It doesn't matter if the company is a mega-billion dollar enterprise if the references ain't up to snuff. doktorb _words^deeds 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: A careful reading of the coverage and an understanding of the media enterprises behind them shows that they are not promotional. I've done many articles over ten years, and have been able to suss out pretty quickly what sourcing is promotional cut and paste fluff filler, and what isn't. None of the sources I used for this article are anything but original journalism. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine of that first block above are dependent sources and fail WP:SIRS. If that is the case, why are you still posting Crunchbase references, which are showing up deep red by the script as being particularly poor sourcing, specifically deigned by RS and by NCORP as ultra low quality and and an unreliable source. Yet you keep adding them. Techcrunch is just as bad. I don't think you know what a good source is. Looking at the Fortune reference. That is an interview style article that absolutely fails WP:ORGIND and is primary, because she is talking to them directly. They're classic Churnalism, by the very definition of it. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to gaslight by repeatedly attacking reliable sources that are used in thousands of articles, but if you’re so sure the sources are unreliable, why don’t you go to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if you can convince other expert editors? It’s because they’re not unreliable, and any unconnected editor who reads the coverage will see there’s nothing promotional about it. It simply describes the business for interested readers, neutrally and without fluff. You are clearly a committed deletionist, and while I may look like an inclusionist, would it surprise you that I have a higher success rate with my delete votes than you do? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and perhaps you are missing the point. When I see an article is rank, I will try and delete it. If I don't think there is any chance of it being deleted, I won't even nominate it and they're is plenty rank articles out there, that aren't notable and I will never be able to delete them. It is the nature of the system. And success rate is nothing to do with it either. It is what is right and proper. I interpret the guidelines like everybody else. I don't think it is a good thing to add these types of article into Wikipedia mainly because they have number of problems. They are hard to maintain, are better created somewhere else on the web like Bloomberg, that are paid to maintain the information and at the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be directory. scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly passes WP:GNG. As a policy based argument goes, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The entire article is sourced with independent reliable sources. No primary sources or press releases were needed to provide information about this notable company. Having good articles about notable companies does not make Wikipedia a directory - rather, that's one of the purposes of Wikipedia. Sourcing and policy aside, it's just common sense. It's the first online notarization company, which would be significant even if we weren't in a pandemic. The notarization business is quite large, and will indeed be disrupted, for the better. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator Timtempleton is relying on WP:GNG to prove the article sources are reliable and independent. However the analysis above based on the newer standard WP:NCORP, which the editor seems inclined not to use, shows that most of the sources are of the very low-quality churnalism type, or are dependent interview types, completely breaking NCORP. The first task of any article is to enable validation per WP:V. There is no indication in the sources or the text that this company is notable, it is merely a list of operations for a new private startup. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's currently a discussion ongoing on the WP:N Talk page where the clear consensus is that the NCORP/NORG SNG is the guideline to follow and that this guideline adopts a stricter interpretation on sources that establish notability for companies/organizations. With that in mind, much of Timtempleton's arguments fall away. For example, Timtempleton lists four references above which are claimed to meet the criteria for notability for the reasons that they are independent, third party sources. This reference from BizJournals opens with An Arlington tech startup says and relies entirely on an interview/quotation with the CEO. Even by GNG standards, this in not "independent" and experienced editors who spend time at AfD are expected to know that an "independent source" doesn't just mean that the publisher is functionally and corporately separate from the topic company, but that the content is also Independent. WP:ORGIND within WP:NCORP provides clarity on "Independent Content" to mean original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This reference therefore fails ORGIND and GNG. The TechCrunch reference suffers the same faults, the article starts with Notarize, the platform that enables digital notarizations, announced and the reference is clearly based on a company announcement and interview/quotations attributed to the CEO. This reference fails for the same reasons as the previous. This Crunchbase reference is off the back of this announcement and fails for the exact same reasons as the previous two references. It contains no Independent Content. Finally, this Fortune article is a classic churnalism profile piece, based on an interview with the CEO and also contain absolutely zero Independent Content. All four reference fail GNG (an "independent" reference doesn't just refer to no corporate links between the publisher and the topic company) and WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. (adding my sig late) HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: I read articles listed at AFD first. The 3rd paragraph of the "History" section states "By June 2017, the company had reportedly done 10,000 notarizations worldwide." and uses an NPR inline citation. As I clicked on the link I was thinking that this shows some international recognition. The source states "Pase estimates that Notarize has facilitated some 10,000 notarizations for people on every continent except Antarctica." Two paragraphs above this is the estimators identification: "Pase, with the company Notarize...". This is certainly primary statements that are not independent of the subject. -(see added comments below) - Otr500 (talk)

Comments[edit]

The lead is sourced by the Washington Post but the content of that source states "Because it’s just now publicly launching its product, the company has no customers yet and hence no revenue. But there are 24 notaries already signed up to work as independent contractors.". This does not support notability.

When there are crappy sources like Crunchbase and Techcrunch I have to look at those usually considered more reliable and independent and this apparently only backs up the startup year. The source dated February 4, 2016, does not actually give a 2015 founding. The source also states that "Right now the platform only works on iPhone and specifically targets individual consumers." which is not covered in the article that simply advertises an "online service".

The article states, "Notarize's online notary video service was used by Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins for a sworn affidavit alleging voter fraud, a claim that was later recanted." The inline "Business Insider" source states "obtained through an online notary service" with a link to the notarize.com home page. If not advertising the company through the link I would question why the name was simply not just provided. The second paragraph of "Challenge" states "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.". There is a constant problem in this regard.

As Wikipedia becomes more reliable the old "there are plenty of sources" became outdated. Editors actually look at the sources to determine if they are not only reliable but directly support material in an article and many of the sources I have checked fail in this regard. Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks everyone for the comments. After ten years and almost 100 articles, it shows that I still have something to learn about sourcing. I removed the offending ones and request a relist of this discussion so the revision can be reviewed. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi Tim, the answer isn't about removing the "offending" references as this won't make good references that establish notability appear. Also, there are two types of reference - those that support facts/descriptions/etc within the article and those that establish notability - the former are a much lower standard than the latter. If you believe there are references that meet the higher NCORP standard, just post the links here and you will get fast feedback. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Here are some of the best sources that make up the article.
  - ^[1]
  - ^[2]
  - ^[3]
  - ^[4]
  - ^[5]
  - ^[6]

References

^ "Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age". The Wall Street Journal. 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
^ "Coronavirus Forcing Home Buyers to Scramble to Close Deals". Wall Street Journal. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
^ "Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary". Fortune. 2016-06-13. Retrieved 2020-10-02.(subscription required)
^ "Need a Document Notarized? There's an App for That". Entrepreneur. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-11-23.
^ "A Will Without Ink and Paper". NY Times. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
^ "The Startup That Could Save You From One Very Boring and Time-Consuming Task". Inc. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-10-07.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Halon, Eytan (2019-01-16). "Start-up offers online notarization service for U.S. citizens worldwide: Boston-based start-up Notarize aims to make such bureaucracy a thing of the past". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  The article notes:
  Boston-based start-up Notarize aims to make such bureaucracy a thing of the past, enabling US citizens at home and abroad, including in Israel, to legally notarize documents online, day or night, in a matter of minutes. ... Founded in 2015, Notarize has already assisted tens of thousands of individuals and businesses on every continent, excluding Antarctica, to have documents digitally notarized. The company has even executed over 1,000 online mortgage transactions in the last 18 months, reducing average deal closure time from 52 days to under a week.
2. Rao, Leena (2016-06-13). "Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  The article notes:
  With Notarize, anyone can upload a document to their mobile phone or Notarize’s website and connect with a notary online in less than three minutes. Users will also be asked to take a picture and upload their state ID, and Notarize will validate your identity. Notarize then coordinates a video call with a licensed Notary, where the official will validate your identity and witness your signature of a documents. Notarize’s notary will apply an digital notarization seal, and sign and validate the document. Notarize charges users $25 per notarization.
3. Sawyers, Paul (2020-07-08). "Form D Friday: Online notary startup leads local businesses raising $77M+". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2020-11-04. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  The article notes:
  Founded in 2015, Notarize provides the platform for signing documents, along with a notary who can verify the participants in a transaction. Working across PCs, tablets, and smartphones, Notarize enables users to upload a PDF or snap a photo of a paper document, verify their identity, and connect with a notary across a two-way video stream. The notary completes the final verification and adds their own signature and “seal” digitally, and the user can download the fully notarized document. The platform also supports multiple participants when additional witnesses are required by law.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Notarize to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources contain quotes from people affiliated with the company. As demonstrated by the quotes I've included above, the sources contain enough independent reporting not based on interviews to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. That Notarize has been profiled by The Jerusalem Post and Fortune strongly establishes that it is notable.
Cunard (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least you've acknowledged that the sources "contain quotes from people affiliated with the company" but you appear to be saying that the extracts you've posted are "independent reporting". ORGIND states references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject for the purposes of establishing notability. Taking a deeper look at your references:

The Jerusalem Post reference is 100% entirely based on an interview with the founder/CEO. It starts with a photo of staff outside their office in Boston. The format of the article is promotional and follows the same tired format. 1) Define the problem. 2) The Founder's "aha!" moment. 3) Company beginnings 4) Description of produce/service 5) Future-looking comments and funding. Everything except 5) is in this article. The first part of the extract you've quoted above is also not "Independent Content" as the author clearly attributes the company aspirations to the company itself. The second part of the extract is sandwiched between quotations from the CEO/Founder and it is clearly information that was provided by the company. We don't simply look at an article and extract sentences that are not quotations and say "Look, this journalist is providing their own opinion or analysis or investigation" when clearly they're simply regurgitating information that they were provided by the company. This article fails WP:ORGIND.
The Fortune article is also promotional. Just like the previous article, the article is entirely based on an interview with the founder. Nothing in the article suggest that the author tried out the service themselves and the extract you've provided regurgitates information from the Notarize website. This reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
The VentureBeat article is 100% based on this company announcement. Also fails WP:ORGIND.

None of those references meet the criteria set out in WP:NCORP for companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised this is still but I see the same poor references still being posted that assert, for the most part WP:NCORP. Looking at the first ref of Cunards above. The first fails WP:ORGIND, another dependent source, interview style. Notarize director of marketing Ryan MacInnis told The Jerusalem Post

The second one: Fails WP:ORGIND. Another dependent source, and interview style. The third one is an annoucement of funding, that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. These has been no real references been presented. They are all primary interview. No secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 00:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that it plainly fails WP:NCORP. Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Sock. scope_creep^Talk 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted comment The above user has been blocked as a sock created to vote delete in AfD discussions on articles I created. Can I strike the comment so it's clear to the closer? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blacklisteffort is a brand new account created to participate in these deletion discussions for two articles I wrote. Discussion is ongoing at SPI. Also, simply saying a source is unreliable to further one’s deletion vote doesn’t hold as much weight versus actually getting the reliable sources noticeboard to agree. All the sources used here are reliable and independent. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP which is applicable per consensus at WP:N is for these types of articles. It gives ample instruction within the article in how to apply it. Perhaps you should read it. scope_creep^Talk 23:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a direct quote from WP:NCORP, "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." All the sources in the article are reliable and unrelated to the organization, so according to the policy you cite, this meets the strict guidelines for notability. That being settled, do you find it odd that these brand new accounts are following you around voting to delete in support of your nominations of articles I've written? Do you know who is doing this, or is it just a strange coincidence? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue who is doing it or why. Spa accounts have been a feature of Afd since the beginning and they're input is perfectly valid as I've found out to my chagrin many times in the past. It is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Regarding the sources, only you, Tim are saying are saying the sources are reliable. Nobody else is. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources noticeboard is a better use of your time, and I hope you will be more curious about obvious socks that pop up, because they won’t always mirror your delete votes. I also hope this continues to be a positive experience for both of us. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 1 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. The SPA !votes have been disregarded in this close. Two sources have been presented and discussed. The International Far-Right is published by a reputable publisher, but is barely more than a mention. The other ([42]) contains slightly more information, but is best characterized as a blog post (see WP:BLPSPS). This is clearly below the WP:GNG threshold which require substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to support the argument that he is a notable film maker, only an entry for a minor film award (they even say explicitly that the entries ranged from "professional products from established companies to home-produced DVDs"[43]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rowsell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; only one source, and even that source lacks WP:SIGCOV. The subject may well become notable in the future, but I don't think it is now. There is an AfD from 2016 under his full name which resulted in deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rowsell. Ffranc (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The peer-reviewed academic work discussing this alt-right figure appears to emphasize his notability. We can't link directly to Breitbart News due to its Spam blacklist status, but that would alos appear. There's probably more academic discourse on this particular Youtube channel and its influence to pull from as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos:, @Katolophyromai:: Are you able to find further discussion about the subject of this entry in media or academic sources? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the information in the cited source already verifies Rowsell as notable per WP:FILMMAKER (1). Krakkos (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceaf:: The source quoted is written by a political activist group who the Wikipedia legal team have previously ruled are not an unbiased souce. The book is not an academic publication therefore cannot be "peer reviewed" - the article is misleading listing only one of the numerous publications the journalist wrote for. The full list of publications were included in an earlier version of the page which was deleted. The quotes from the 'Ancient North Eurasians' video do not represent the way Tilak's theory was contrasted with the actual theory the author endorses which is supported by Harvard studies cited in the video description. This page should either be deleted or revised. If the subject is notable as a film maker then a filmography ought to be included or mention of the work as a film maker using imdb as the source. Sceaf: (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page regarding this user's attempts to invalidate this high-quality source and turn the entry into a puff page for the subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails the BASIC test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable, academic source makes that clear. Probably a lot more coverage out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search, I was able to find various other WP:RS-compliant sources. I believe notability should be well established now. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the sources can be said to contain significant coverage about Rowsell ("addresses the topic directly and in detail", "more than a trivial mention"). The International Far-Right seems to have the most coverage, but it's just four sentences, where it mentions him as an example of someone who has discussed a certain topic. The other sources even more just mention him in passing, as one of several people who attended a meeting etc. Ffranc (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements from experts noting referring to the "the alt-right’s go-to expert on all matters Indo-European" would seem to indicate clear notability, as would coverage of the subject's activities by notable organization Hope not Hate. There's also plenty more one could add to the article: Hope not Hate 2019 discusses Rowsell's background with the alt-right and connection to notable neo-Nazis and "folkish" Germanic Neopagan groups that is not currently in the article. Clearly, if these scholars and experts on the topic are willing to make a statement like that and Hope not Hate provide coverage of him, he's notable enought to merit it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Importance or influence are not the same things as notability. There are sources with coverage of him, but they lack significant coverage, as defined in the guideline I've linked to. I'm sure Rowsell will have a Wikipedia page one day, but we need to be patient. Ffranc (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. that his views and activities are absurd does not make him non-notable. There's sufficient discussion in the osurces. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, which of the sources would you say have sufficient discussion about Rowsell? I can't see how the current sources make him more notable than, say, a pop group with an article based on concert listings - "band X played at festival A where also bands Y and Z played". Ffranc (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: both the book and the website which form the bulk of this content are from the same activist organisation - Hope not Hate. Sceaf (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Hope not Hate is an organization, and this is a peer-reviewed book published by academic press Routledge. Some of the experts and scholars involved in the peer-reviewed book have worked with (or work) with Hope not Hate. Not at all surprising given the topic. Note that before this vote, this user has attempted to scrub and rewrite the article in a promotional manner a few times now (example).:bloodofox: (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this user's edit history is very interesting in light of their comments and attempts to turn the article into a promotional piece for the subject and when that failed, to have it removed entirely: Consider this edit for example and edits like this from back in 2016 that demonstrate a particular fascination with the Rowsell family name. Here's one where he attempts to get the phrase "far-right" removed from Wikipedia's Breitbart article, a media company for which Rowsell wrote. In fact, this user's edit history aligns with topics either covered by or topics that would be covered by Rowsell on his YouTube channel, or reflects a general interest in the Rowsell family name. Sceaf, are you Tom Rowsell or are you somehow otherwise closely connected to the subject? If so, it would be wise to announce a conflict of interest here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Not notable. Robincard (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Not notable, there are YouTubers with a far larger viewer base who don't have Wikipedia pages. Rowsell certainly isn't relevant enough either as an academic, a YouTuber or as a right wing figure to warrant a Wikipedia article. Definite delete from me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B404:9200:C9EE:7968:CBE6:A788 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this anonymous IP user has not edited before weighing in here and earlier version's of the IP's votes repeatedly leveled personal attacks at myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: He simply isn't notable enough; a few thousand YouTube views and a mention in a Hope Not Hate report isn't substantial enough to deserve an article for my money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.180.101 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another new IP account chiming in: This is this account's second edit. This editor is also misrepresenting sourcing in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 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 merge to Linus Torvalds. JGHowes ^talk 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subsurface (software)[edit]

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

seems to be just a synthesis of readme pages or author social media posts. Lacks independent sources. Is the topic independently notable for its own page? The creator is notable, but sources on page don't establish independent notability. Perhaps some parts could be merged into Torvalds' main page? Swil999 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Linus Torvalds I agree with the nominator that there is, at this time at least, simply not enough independent coverage for an article. The best sources available are interviews with its famous co-developer. I think only very small bits should be merged into Linus's article, if any. PJvanMill)talk( 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Linus Torvalds While it is possibly notable for a biography of Linus, I don't believe it is important enough to justify a full Wikipedia page (seeing as many much more notable FOSS projects don't enjoy one). RealSaddy (talk) 06:23, 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 no consensus. Please improve it, because someone else could come along and nominate this for AfD again Missvain (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passmore Sisters[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of being able to pass WP:NBAND Spiderone 16:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three Radio 1 sessions, plus 2 singles that charted on the Independent Singles Chart ("Every Child..." peaked at no. 16 and "A Safe Place..." at no. 23. There will certainly be print coverage from the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elikem Kumordzie[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajalon (band)[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable Christian rock band. The sources in the article are a primary source, an interview, and two unreliable sources. Allmusic bio is just four sentences long. This is just an interview. Looks like a minor Christian prog rock band that put out a little bit of work, but didn't get much coverage. Not seeing a WP:NBAND pass here, but I may have missed something. Tagged for notability since 2017. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any reliable, non-primary references other than maybe a couple of promotional interviews. And there's no indication that they meet any of the other criteria at WP:BAND. Surachit (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Surachit. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:BAND Samat lib (talk) 21:38, 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 keep. The consensus is that the subject is notable enough for an article, but that the article needs to be tidied up to meet the standards expected in Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nihal Kaur[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this article, and the article on subject's husband Baba Gurditta are not GNG compatible, but I guess these are from the central figures of the Sikh religion. I don't know if we have any subjective guidelines on this, but I guess their status in the Sikh religion is enough to grant them notability. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, The Aafī! You make a very valid point indeed; and I sort of thought in same direction. But for her in particular (with all due respect) - since notability can not be inherited - simply being wife/mother of notable figures should not deem an article on her. Interesting to know what others think! Palmsandbeaches (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmsandbeaches, I do know that notability is not inherited but I did no where argue that this subject is notable because her son or husband is notable. Did I? No. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a central figure in Sikh religion. You got a wikipage on Rachel a favourite wife of Jacob. Deleting this page could add to WP:WORLDVIEW. Any references would be in Gurmukhi, unlikely to be on the internet. HOWEVER the article needs to be rewritten. It is a copypaste of some webpages found on on various websites. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, the subject is likely notable. Though the lack of citations and difficulty in finding them for people who are not well informed on the Sikh religion makes it difficult to establish that. So, moving it to draft seems like the appropriate thing to do where it can be improved without it possibly violating guidelines while on the mainspace. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Duluth[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this seems to be another list of not very tall buildings in a city where there seems to be no WP:SIGCOV on this topic. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Duluth' 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 as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Emporis.
The city is not the largest in Minnesota nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 35m makes it notable, which is the bar used here.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay and List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec Spiderone 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find one source titled "What’s the tallest building in Duluth?", but it was the only such source I could find talking about the tall buildings of Duluth and it doesn't go into the other current tall buildings, just an upcoming expansion at Essentia Health. As for individual buildings, Greysolon Plaza (Hotel Duluth), and Board of Trade Building probably deserve describing at Duluth Commercial Historic District, but I'm not sure there's enough for standalone articles for the two of them. So, I agree with the nominator's reasoning. Chris857 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, none of the entries are notable, so there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 15:11, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Altos Rod and Gun Club Range[edit]

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

Not convinced this is a notable shooting range. This is minimal and probably paid-for. This is actually a decent new piece. Beyond that, mostly just blogs, forums, and trivial coverage that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Found in CAT:NN cleanup, tagged for notability since 2016. I don't think that one piece is enough for WP:NORG, but if y'all turn up any more, I'm willing to reconsider and possibly withdraw. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in article or in the search results presented above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 4 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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Ass-Kicking Life[edit]

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

The article does not cite any references and doing a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up jack. Except a couple of reviews for an album with the same by another band or the band was the name of the album. I'm not really sure. The important thing though is that this isn't notable. There is an AllMusic page for it, but it does not have any reviews either. So, this is a WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC fail. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band, House of Large Sizes, as is usual policy. The nominator is correct about how this album received no reliable coverage. I considered nominating the band for deletion as well, because their article also has no viable sources, but they got a few bits and pieces of coverage at different periods of their career. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about nominating the bands article also. Which was why I didn't suggest a redirect. I'd be fine with that now that you say there is some stuff about them somewhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few fairly reliable media stories on the band, so I can improve their article after this nomination for the album runs its course. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Love the album title, but this is a non-notable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Large Sizes: Barely found anything about the album. Not ass-kicking in terms of notability. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Siege: Never Surrender[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFILM and WP:NFSOURCES. It’s not notable. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the Radio Times review provided by ReaderofthePack is a capsule review and capsule reviews are considered "insufficient to fully establish notability" per WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on that - it's not enough to be considered in-depth. I was hoping to find more, but ultimately it's not out there as far as I can see. This is a delete on my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It’s been over a week now and no has commented. Any comments? Pinging @Donaldd23, Toughpigs, and Johnpacklambert: Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing we have here is not enough to meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:36, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sadough[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO created by user with clear WP:COI. Sources appear to mostly be about the President of Iran visiting his hotel, and interviews - no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls way short of WP:GNG. Searches don't reveal WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS.Faizal batliwala (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable due to lack of significant coverage and promotional. PhilKnight (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N in any variant. WP:ARTSPAM. Nominator sums things up well. Does meet my criteria for WP:G11, but as long as we are here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:13, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Zojaji[edit]

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

Self promoting non notable person (with socks) - all self published sources and hoax claim to have won the International Young Physicists' Tournament - (draft version had image of certificate saying participate). Google scholar claims for very random selection of papers with different names on a wide range of subjects - pure fantasy. Also promoting two cousins with undeclared COI KylieTastic (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete As per nominator. Clearly a non notable person. And Strong indication of COI.DMySon 14:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff piece. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tournaments that high schools compete in do not lead to awards that grant notability. That is assuming that what is said in the article is even correct, which I have no reason to believe based on the doubts expressed above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not establish notability Spiderone 19:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; zero notability, and zero credibility. (Could even be a hoax or private joke of some sort?) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable due to lack of significant coverage and promotional. Hoax content as well. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notability is one thing. HOAX content is vandalism. False content in the interest of puffing oneself up destroys AGF. I've seen promotional content for gain, and that I understand, but this is nothing I've seen before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 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. Clear consensus that this individual meets GNG Fenix down (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Wood[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. Geschichte (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Some refs added; looks like she also has some rugby chops. N:FOOTY and its essay N:FPL fail the vast majority of women's football leagues around the world and is not reliable. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly not notable for her football career but has established herself and coverage was extremely easy to find for rugby union and rugby league for Sammie Wood. Whilst, not a reason for keeping, she has quite an interesting story. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] I'll happily improve this article if the community decides it's worth keeping. Spiderone 12:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone on the basis of her rugby career. Meets GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been expanded to 5x size since it was nominated for AfD so delete voters may wish to review the updated article. Spiderone 15:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone, passes WP:GNG for her rugby union career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:52, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Harrison[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. Geschichte (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm happy to be proved wrong but I couldn't find any coverage that could amount to a GNG pass Spiderone 13:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 10:22, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Fiji and Ireland[edit]

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

Does not seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth, which is not surprising since they play against each other an average of once every seven years. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later. All this article can be at the moment is just a listing of match results and is therefore a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTSTATS and several precedent discussions. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NRIVALRY, just listcruft basically. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a history at all, just stats. Per above, no particular rivalry. Nigej (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article but have no opinion either way. I created it initially because I figured any two notable rugby teams should have a match history page since its a fairly niche sport competitively but if that's not the case, fair enough. I've leave the decision up to ye. Stevenbfg (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this does end up being deleted, please feel free to copy to your user space. This topic could be notable enough for a stand-alone article in the future. Spiderone 07:52, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghna Alam[edit]

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

She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see nothing to show any notability. KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support Nothing notable about someone who won a beauty pageant JayPlaysStuff (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the edit history, the creator and main editor Tonim 007 appears to support deletion. Tonim 007, I suggest that you comment here for the record. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not found any sources that could qualify for GNG. Fails both GNG and WP:Entertainer.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just winning a beauty pageant is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Fiji and Georgia[edit]

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

Does not seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later. All this article can be at the moment is just a listing of match results and is therefore a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 10:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTSTATS and several precedent discussions. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NRIVALRY, just listcruft basically. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a history at all, just stats. Per above, no particular rivalry. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are over 100 of these pages in Category:Rugby union matches by national team and nearly all should go. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 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. Tone 18:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies[edit]

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

No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have proposed this for speedy, on account of zero indication of any importance, and the complete lack of sources (other than Companies House record showing that such an entity exists... owned and directed by a husband & wife team out of a London flat). Needless to say, fails on every measure of WP:N, WP:V, etc. Although, for a translations company they sure have found themselves an impressive name, I'll give them that much! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaCityHipHop.Com Compilation[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NALBUMS [[User talk: Pulisi|Pulisi]] ([[User talk:Pulisi|talk]]) (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. [[User talk: Pulisi|Pulisi]] ([[User talk:Pulisi|talk]]) (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's notability criteria for albums have evolved significantly since this was first created in 2010 — once upon a time, the only notability criterion that a compilation album had to pass was that it had at least one notable artist with a Wikipedia article on it, which this obviously does. But that's no longer the baseline standard: to be notable now, an album has to show a lot more than just the presence of a blue link in the track listing, such as significant critical attention, chart performance, notable awards, or something of that ilk. The only thing here that starts this down the correct road is the (deadlinked but likely recoverable) review from Exclaim! — conversely, neither "RapReviews.com" nor "Urbnet.com" bolster the case, since those are both blogs rather than real reliable source media outlets — but while Exclaim! is a start, it isn't a finish all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer, and I can't find anything else that helps. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 29 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. Keep rationales have the strongest reasoning Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Land Isfahan[edit]

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

WP:N, deleted in Persian Wikipedia as well. Ladsgroup^overleg 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am convinced that we have WP:THREE here, putting the refs already in the article or Persian language sources aside: Its design was awarded in World Architecture Festival in 2014 [49] and has been subject to commentary by Designboom [50], Gizmodo [51] and The Cambridge Companion to Medievalism (p. 43). Other sources do exist (doi:10.22034/bagh.2019.142454.3707). Deletion on Persian Wikipedia (which is another project with standards lower than English Wikipedia) is irrelevant and an invalid argument. Pahlevun (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – looking at the sources in the article as well as those presented by Pahlevun I believe that notability exists. --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Non-English sources are still sources. With what Pahlevun has turned up, plus what's in the article, seems to clearly pass WP:GNG. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 06:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 03:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Malt Whisky Company[edit]

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

Promo article about non-notable business, non-RS sources show no significant coverage; fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Earlier speedy was rejected on the basis that it's "not spam enough for G11", so it's here for a second opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 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. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chandra Pandey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reviews or anything of his work. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wrote only 2 books, no awards. Fails WP:AUTHOR Serv181920 (talk) 17:20, 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. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Pandey[edit]

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

non-notable politician. Hasn't won any relevant election. Content is half English and half Hindi. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was previously created as Anil Kumar Pandey and deleted after a discussion [52]

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content is gibberish, because of likely vandalism by a now-blocked IP editor; the last good edit is perfectly legible. Notability would still need to be established, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, person is not a representative in a state or national legislative body, only elected to a cooperative bank. All sources in the article are only mentions of the name, no actual descriptions of the person or details of their actions or influence, ie no WP:SIGCOV. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article neither sources nor even claims that he's ever held any role that would pass WP:NPOL, and the sources are not about him in the sense that would be necessary to claim that he passed WP:GNG in lieu. We're looking for coverage that is substantively about him, not just hits that happen to mention his name in the process of being about other things. I've also restored the last good pre-vandal edit. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 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. If anyone wants anything from this article, just let me know. I'll drop it in your sandbox. Missvain (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extitution[edit]

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

It is not clear what the subject of this article is, and so it adds little or no value to the encyclopedia. It is not exactly original research, but it appears to be refer to academic work that is primary and does not have any secondary references. The article has no lede, which is not required, but which would help to evaluate whether the article has content. A Google search on 'Extitution' turns up two hits, which are the first two references, the Spicer paper in Ephemera, and the Frolov paper. This appears to be an academic concept that has not been accepted, or just a neologism.

The Frolov paper is entitled, " From institutions to extitutions to the post-institutional theory of institutional anomalies", and seems to be really about institutional anomalies. The second sentence in the abstract of the Spicer paper says: "Extitutions are figures which have an ambiguous, destabilised and sometimes threatening quality." That is, systems are complicated.

This is an academic concept that does not appear to have secondary sources. A combination of deletion reason 6, deletion reason 7, and deletion reason 8 apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This appears to be a neologism that has, at least at present, very little if any mainstream recognition. BEFORE searches turn up essentially nothing besides what the nominator has listed. I'm not sure that at this point there is sufficient material for anything beyond (somewhat poorly) defining the term, which would fall afoul of WP:NOTDICDEF; it is also a fail of the GNG at this time due to the complete lack of independent, secondary reliable sources. CThomas³ (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some superficial Scholar searching shows that the term is, if not ubiquitous, then at least in use, and generally the authors who use it also go to moderate length to define and attribute it (to Spicer or Serres, usually). Examples of papers where this is done include [53] (the very first Scholar hit BTW), [54](journal link), [55](journal link), [56], and [57]; plus quite a few more that don't bother with definitions and just attribute and use the term. In view of this kind of uptake, there are no notability issues, and using the primary source(s) for the basics is fine as well. - Still, these sources actually need to make it into the article, and it does need a lede; you can get halfway through at the moment and have no idea what that thing is supposed to be about... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: we appreciate your efforts finding these, but I don't think any of them are published, certainly not the Microsoft Word PDF, and they are not reliable sources and should not be added to any article. The first reference you used is a maybe, at least it has a DOI even though it explicitly states itself as an archive, which does not count as published. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: Actually they all are published, and have DOIs; I have added in-journal links above. (Also, I managed to double up the last one; replaced #4 with the one I intended. Also published with DOI). Not that these little social science things don't look a little weird to my STEM sensibilities. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIC. Until such time as the topic catches on a little more mainstream and secondary sources which can be used to build an article are released, this article is not necessary. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rewrite. The clearest reference seems to be [58] (ref 9 above) , and I am not sure from the way the term is used there that it matches what the article's ref 1 defines it. As for what meaning the term has according to our article, I remain ignorant: " social dynamics that extends beyond the existing institutional framework. " can mean almost anything. If it means social dynamics everywhere except in institutions, it's almost the entire field of social psychology. DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:54, 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. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McClintock, Colorado[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. A GNIS "locale" doesn't mean much (definition: "place at which there is or was human activity"), and there's nothing else about this spot. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Going back in topos discloses a turning wye, and older aerials show the same. This was a rail location which may among other things served some sort of a mining operation. At any rate, not a notable location. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 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 delete. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zest3D[edit]

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

Not seeing this meet notability as I cannot find any sources on this engine. GamerPro64 05:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions in a custom Google search of tech news sources, Google Books, and Google Scholar. No suitable redirect targets. Let me know if you find additional sources. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput wedding[edit]

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

This articles do not meet wikipedia General notability guidelineWP:GNG. Lack of secondary sources and basically written for promotional purpose. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be a valid topic for an article, but this version has nothing worth keeping. - SimonP (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:15, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalay-Gowlan language[edit]

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

Kwamikagami requested speedy deletion in 2016 under the following rationale: "A review of the lit finds this topic (and my creation of a merged article) to be spurious. I merged several caste names which had received spurious ISO language codes; those codes are now redirected to the individual castes" and according to the talk page he still believes the rationale is true. I agree with the rationale. Honestly, the CSD should have been accepted as WP:G7 all those years ago, but I'm not sure G7 still applies as there's some significant page history not by Kwami. — Wug·a·po·des 04:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 04:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something I essentially invented, due to a poor understanding of the subject matter. I had too much stuff on my watchlist to have noticed that my deletion request was rejected. — kwami (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Glottolog: This entry has been retired and is featured here only for bookkeeping purposes. Bhalay is a caste rather than an ethnic group with a particular language, and if they speak a language separate from their neighbours, it is Nimadi. Possibly redirect to Bhalay caste. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thjarkur Spiderone 10:30, 1 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. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmac2021[edit]

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

YouTube musician with questionable notability. A few articles online highlighting some videos of his, but nothing on him as a person in WP:RS that I can find. Mbdfar (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles are meant to be based on secondary sources, not sources created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable YouTube musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:MUSICBIO Samat lib (talk) 22:43, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiricahua, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nom failed procedurally, so here we are again. It's still an extremely isolated siding on an now abandoned line, and I note that on the most recent topos as well as on GMaps there is an artificial pond labelled "Chiricahua Siding Tank". There is literally nothing man-made in something like a ten mile radius except for AZ Route 80, some side roads, a few ponds, and the scar of the old railbed, still plain as can be something like 30-40 years after abandonment. The oldest topo I found showed the same, except the rails were still there. There isn't the slightest possibility there was ever a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is the slightest possibility there was a settlement there, quite a ways back. [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] However given the entire area is known as the Chiricahuas, it's impossible to verify. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But see also [64], which tells you not to bother looking for any settlements. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing there now, and if we can't even conclusively confirm what this place was or whether it was considered a settlement at any point, we shouldn't have an article on it. (I checked, but I couldn't find anything more conclusive than what SportingFlyer did, just some information about a Chiricahua Development Company that ran a mine somewhere in the area.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Still a plausible search term. Redirect to Chiricahua (disambiguation)#Chiricahua, Arizona. MB 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not, and never was, a legally recognized community at this site. None of the dab page entries seem to be known as "Chirachua, Arizona", so I'm unconvinced that proposed redirect is particularly helpful. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:02, 1 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with nothing but keep !votes. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaouad Akaddar[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. There's no citations; i.e. no evidence of him appearing in a " competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues."~~ Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found evidence that he represented the Morocco national team, and was capped in fully pro leagues in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Clearly passes NFOOTY, and with his death and cap passes GNG. Could probably use some sprucing up.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now evidenced to pass NFOOTY Spiderone 09:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, should we close this, nominator? Geschichte (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International footballer who appears to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing after seeing conclusive evidence of the subject's notability.Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:04, 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 keep. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murray (physiologist)[edit]

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

BLPs probably shouldn't sit around with notability questions for more than a decade. I was unable to find WP:Independent sources that discuss this person. He was quoted in the news when a different Cambridge alumnus won a prize, but aside from confirming his job title and employer's name, the few independent sources I could find do not describe him. I'd be very happy to have this nomination declined on WP:HEY grounds. (Watch out for the many wrong Andrew Murrays; I found that Andrew Murray Cambridge -tennis was a useful search string.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both enough Google Scholar citations for WP:PROF#C1 and enough popular-press articles about his research for #C7. I removed some unsourced personal details from the article (for which I could not find sources despite searching) and replaced them with more material on his research. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with David Eppstein. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than enough evidence on show thanks to David Eppstein's work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism in Israel[edit]

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it doesn't cite a single source. I believe WP:TNT applies. The topic itself may be notable but it needs to go through the AfC process to ensure WP:V is met. ImTheIP (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not about liberalism in Israel, i.e. an ideology with its tenets and proponents, rather a history of political parties considered to be on the left, without sources tying them together. Could certainly be recreated with the former as its subject. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reywas92, "a history of political parties considered to be on the left"??? The Liberal Party (Israel) was on the right, as was Kulanu. Both merged into the Likud. Zehut is also on the right. Most other liberal parties in Israel were centrist. Maybe give this another look? gidonb (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"considered to be liberal" then. But without sources discussing their ideology, the content of the article does not match the name. It should be renamed to History of liberal parties in Israel if kept – with sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, there are three references in the article so you may already want to change your preferences. I'm not getting into someone else's decisions. Was only wondering what you meant since liberalism is such a significant political ideology in Israel, not in particular identified with the left... gidonb (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all of these sources are generic sources about news about political parties, not about the ideology of liberalism in Israel. The subject of this article is History of liberal parties in Israel and the current title is inappropriate because the article and its news source do not describe what liberalism means there. If the content were more of "liberal parties in Israel have generally advocated for X, Y, and Z policies. They have implemented and advocated for [these[ policies in these ways. Major intellectual figures in Israeli liberalism include A, B, and C, who have held [these] positions." and then sourced to references that actually discuss liberalism then the current title would be appropriate. Perhaps that was why I was confused about the left-right spectrum, becuase this article does not help place the reader in it, nor describes what actually makes these parties and politicians liberal, rather just gives random facts about the formation and electoral results of parties. If liberalism is such a significant ideology, tell me what that means and what it is with respect to Israeli political economy! I'm happy to keep if renamed, else it needs to be substantially rewritten. Reywas92^Talk 06:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism in Iran and Liberalism in the United States are better examples of what this sort of article should look like – obviously not needing to be so long, but actually telling me what liberalism represents. I would still say to delete if it's just a timeline, sourced or not, because that's not about liberalism, that's just facts about party history. Anyway, thank you for starting to work on the article and I hope to see it become something great! Reywas92^Talk 06:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TNT, article is currently nothing but WP:OR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a great timeline of liberal movements in Israel. Highly notable and really organizes where and when movements were established and where and when they merged, if at all. Just added the first reference. WP:TNT does not apply. WP:NEXIST does. gidonb (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one reference saves the article. :P For the record, the "no references" meta-message that you removed had been at the top of the article since 2007. ImTheIP (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter??? As soon as there's a reference, the template shouldn't be there. Articles are evaluated by sources, not by references. Israel has a very long tradition of liberalism, from well before independence. Plenty of books and articles have been written on the subject so WP:NEXIST applies. My opinion is good for me and WP. There is no need for nominators to start commenting on every single person who disagrees with their proposal! It's rather annoying. Especially when the nominator has so little of relevance to say. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is part of a series and it just cannot be deleted. There is surely a need of sources (and I am sure this debate will bring much needed improvements), but, as the nominator acknowledged, "the topic itself may be notable". The topic is definitely notable and in AfD discussions we do not evaluate the quality of an article and/or its sources, but mainly, if not solely, the subject's notability. --Checco (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The list needs work, but that is not an argument for deletion. Liberalism exists as a political expression in Israel, the links in the list demonstrate this (even if it needs work), I don't think anyone disputes seriously disputes that Liberalism in Israel is a political force, even if minor or waning. The article is also a timeline, so it functions as a list and does meet the criteria for WP:CLN to function as a chronological navigation list. // Timothy :: talk 19:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Are we to WP:TNT every time a cleanup template sticks around too long? Absurd. In any event, it's got footnotes now. As noted, we have articles of this kind about other countries, and while this one may need some cleanup there's plenty there that's salvageable. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 06:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in line with sister articles about currents of liberalism in other countries. I agree that this article should have more sources, but that is no strong argument by itself to delete it.--Autospark (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mentions, interviews and contributor pieces are generally not considered enough to pass WP:GNG. For Forbes contributor pieces specifically, see WP:RSP. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Mike Kelly[edit]

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

Not sure if this meets CSD#G4 as he appears to have a new PPE business that is being promoted here, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kelly (Entrepreneur) as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Champs for his business, which is also promoted here. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the speedy deletion, but only because db-bio doesn't fit. I was unaware of any prior AfDs because none showed in the deletion log. I approved the draft because I thought it might have a chance of surviving AfD because of sources like Forbes, which I can tell wasn't in the first AfD (local news and social media was mentioned). SL93 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a case of G4 as the article has been added a few new sources. However, these sources are either interviews, brief mentions or articles that are written by a contributor and do not help to pass notability requirements.Faizal batliwala (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see him being mention, its OK for GNG. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 06:28, 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be moved to Draft namespace. The article is now located at Draft:List of American films of 2023. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2023[edit]

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

This was moved as an AFC submission, but I moved it back, and just now, it was re-moved to become an article. This should just be moved back to draft space. Thing is, Draft:2023 in film isn't even moved.

If you look to Draft:2022 in film, it is is still a draft, and Draft:List of American films of 2022 was forcibly moved to draft space after a deletion discussion.

The page is too soon, despite another reviewer's insistence. Thus, I am putting this here to put the page back to draftspace, with the full backing of a discussion. Starzoner (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to me to be a good faith, (and bar 2 IMDBs) well-sourced list of films currently slated for a 2023 release. Wikipedia works from reliable sources. The thrust of the 2022 discussion referenced by Starzoner appears to be that "things may change". Which, indeed, they may. And we are capable of making changes if & when those changes occur. Meanwhile we have what we always have; a topic which is notable, and reliable sources providing information useful to that topic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nub of TOOSOON is "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Sources exist. It is not too soon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as premature per WP:CRYSTAL, especially if we do not have 2022-related articles in the mainspace. Furthermore, I have doubts about listing items that are technically plans for films. If filming is underway, it is reasonably likely for a film to be completed. Before that, though, there is too much uncertainty. 2023 is certainly too far out to have an actual list on its own. If something is truly underway and targeted for 2023, then perhaps any future list should append "and beyond", like "2021 and beyond" or "2022 and beyond", and eventually spin off a new year-list after an arbitrary number of films listed for that year. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Anything in the article would be speculation. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all the above. Everything on that list is currently an untitled film that may be made. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per point 1 of WP:CRYSTALBALL, future stuff should only be included if "almost certain to take place". I doubt that any film more than two years away from intended release is 'almost certain', and this entire list definitely isn't. And that's before we even broach the subject of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Far too soon. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete per TimothyBlue. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As only 2/10 films here have actual names, and as I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in film (2nd nomination), who knows if most of these films occur? We also have projects from 2021 that will undoubtedly back up into '22 and '23 because of the pandemic, and these projects could easily bump up to '24 or '25 (and may not even get a greenlight if the studios decide they don't make sense any longer). And we have List of American films of 2022 on an indefinite salt, thus I would support an equal salt here. Nate • (chatter) 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 year out film release timelines are notoriously unstable. Even without the Pandemic this would be the case, the Pandemic has made such issues even more pronounced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 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.

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL. We are far from 2023 as of now. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Marlow[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO, due to WP:INDEPTH. Of the sources that are independent, most are focussing on Morgenshtern. 1292simon (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and sources aren't indepth. -Xclusivzik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician not even close to passing our inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 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. Tone 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTDS - global de-duplication[edit]

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

It is unclear what this article is actually about, as the FTDS acronym was not explained by the creator of the article. The article makes no attempt to explain itself other than direction to another article, and a see also- Cryptographic Hash Function. There is some musing in the talk page as to what the FTDS of the title actually stands for, and the author was asked to clarify on their talk page, but never did. JohnmgKing (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created, templated, and left. If there is actually sources on whatever global de-duplication is, then it might be added to fault tolerance if FTDS stands for Fault-Tolerant Distributed System or Failure Tolerant Disk System as suggested on the article talk page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article creator wrote an unsourced two-sentence article (as his first edit to Wikipedia), failed to explain its topic clearly, and has not edited Wikipedia at any time in the 4 1/2 years since then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I believe that this should have used a proposed deletion instead so that the user could pick up on it in the future if they ever came back. I was going to argue to incubate to give them an extra six months, but given that this was years ago, it is only a single sentence, and the user doesn't seem likely to return, nothing would be lost. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:15, 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. Tone 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of boats with RYA Portsmouth Numbers[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and WP:RAWDATA. This is a list of handicapping/normalization constants for yacht racing. The article is out of date, and is singly sourced -- the plurality of sources is almost completely due to the use of different years of the same primary source as different referenes. Better off left to it's original pulisher, as this list adds no value to the material or the encyclopdeia. The article itself disclaims its veracity due to these issues. Mikeblas (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it’s just a copy of primary data that is readily available anyway, so hard to see what its purpose is. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "1947 ਹਿਜਰਤਨਾਮਾ- 27 : ਸਰਦਾਰ ਪੰਛੀ". jagbani. 24 July 2020.

[2] Service, Tribune News (12 October 2016). "Awards for poets Sardar Panchhi, Tanveer". The Tribune.

[3] "ਉਰਦੂ ਦੀ ਜਨਮ ਭੂਮੀ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਰਦੂ ਨੂੰ ਦਮ ਨਾ ਤੋੜਨ ਦਿਓ-ਸਰਦਾਰ ਪੰਛੀ". Quami Ekta. 13 May 2011.

[4] "ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵਲੋਂ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਵਿਭਾਗ ਦੇ ਨਵੇਂ ਸਲਾਹਕਾਰ ਬੋਰਡ ਦਾ ਗਠਨ". Hindustan Times (in Punjabi). 3 June 2020.

[5] Service, Tribune News (17 September 2019). "Urdu poet apologises for 'offensive' remarks on Punjabi language". The Tribune.

[6] "JKAACL holds All India Urdu Mushaira". KNS. 28 January 2018.

[7] "Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age". The Wall Street Journal. 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2020-10-18.

[wsj2-8] "Coronavirus Forcing Home Buyers to Scramble to Close Deals". Wall Street Journal. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-10-19.

[9] "Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary". Fortune. 2016-06-13. Retrieved 2020-10-02.(subscription required)

[entrepreneur-10] "Need a Document Notarized? There's an App for That". Entrepreneur. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-11-23.

[nyt2-11] "A Will Without Ink and Paper". NY Times. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2020-10-19.

[12] "The Startup That Could Save You From One Very Boring and Time-Consuming Task". Inc. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-10-07.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]