Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

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 speedy keep. My error. Thought this was a different article. Went through the process just a few days ago and subsequently was moved. Added references definitely do support notability. (non-admin closure) Spyder212 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Osler[edit]

Thomas J. Osler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet general notability guidelines, far stretch for most WP:PROF and WP:NTRACK criteria, unless we want to include almost all university math professors that make it to their 80s and marathon winners... Spyder212 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Osler. The page title has apparently been moved since then. Nsk92 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject was a multiple national champion of the United States, which is point 5 of NTRACK. FYI - this was closed as speedy keep at a different title just two days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Osler SFB 23:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think you erred Spyder212 in nominating for deletion. The AfD page of the previous version of the article (Tom Osler) indicates that he qualifies for notability on several points. One in particular, as pointed out by Nsk92 above is that he is a member of the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame, which is specifically criterion 10 in WP:NTRACK. That alone is sufficient for notability, although he also qualifies by dint of his work on the fractional calculus, which is cited 100s of times, as well. All of this is amply referenced in the page. I request you withdraw the nomination.Skymath1 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Skymath1 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Whoops yes I have a COI with the subject of the article, which I disclosed in the recently-closed AfD page. Thank you for the tag, didn't think to restate it since I just had, but I can see the need for clarity. In any event,it doesn't change the unambiguity of the subject of the article meeting criterion 10 of WP:NTRACK. Skymath1 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites for a mathematician. Nominator should explain why he nominated this AfD so soon after withdrawal of Nsk92. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and per my same opinion on the just-closed first AfD. Possibly speedy as the nominator seems not to have considered the first AfD or provided any reason why the outcome should have changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I moved the article after the close of the prior AfD, since the subject published mostly under the fuller name. (Apologies if that caused confusion leading to this 2nd AfD.) Meets WP:NPROF C1 from several papers with 100+ citations in a low citation field, there's also what looks to me to be a credible case for notability from his books on training for distance running. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject meets WP:NTRACK and WP:NPROF, as well as a strong claim at WP:NAUTHOR, all of which is backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources to back up these multiple claims of notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: citations of his work qualify him for WP:PROF#C1, he probably meets WP:NTRACK#10 as noted by others, and the last AfD was only just closed. — MarkH21talk 10:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone! My error! I thought this was a different article. Now I notice this one did go through the process just a few days ago and definitely is notable for inclusion with the added references. Let's speedy close this one! Spyder212 (talk) 03:26, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Legacy of Light (trilogy)[edit]

A Legacy of Light (trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a partly unreleased trilogy of books, it is too soon for this trilogy to pass WP:NBOOK. I cannot find any sort of coverage which would suggest that any of these books are notable. Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no reliable sources discussing the trilogy of books as a whole, nor any of the individual books. I did find a bit on the author, though those article confirmed what I suspected, that these books are self-published. Without any sources, this does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author seems like an amazing person, but the books just don't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could be notable, however I haven't seen many sources about it, and the third book hasen't even been released yet. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Goodreads is not a source that we can build articles on. Nor can we source articles to the subject of the article. We thus have no 3rd party, reliable useable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 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) 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Ray (associate professor)[edit]

Ram Ray (associate professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created and mainspaced and GA reviewed by sock(s), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PremierePrush. Notwithstanding that, I don't see a pass of GNG or NPROF here. Associate prof doesn't make one de-facto notable and citations are pretty low, though I'm admittedly not familiar with the field. A google search returns little else indicative of any kind of notability. The first sentence here claims he worked on Soil Moisture Active Passive, but our article on the topic doesn't even mention him. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citation counts aren't quite enough for WP:PROF#C1, with no other notability visible. In normal circumstances it might be a borderline case but given the promotional editing problems and likely difficulty of keeping this maintained neutrally I'm inclined towards the negative side of that borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see anything I would mark biased positively, but I don't see any negative remarks either. Overall, he does seem to be notable for the field mentioned. I do say it's worth keeping.--Aisnuropulous (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Aisnuropulous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Well, based on SMAP Technology, he does appear to have significant contribution, mainly through research. It also looks like he has plenty of other publications on reliable publishers such as Springer. I also don't see where you guys see promotional content, because most of it seems relatively unbiased. Given that, there are some places where neutrality is perhaps not maintained, but those are easily fixable, and even I can fix them, but I want to wait until a consensus is achieved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotDotHand (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — DotDotHand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon on basis of GS citations. Over 1000 is required for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Salt to prevent recreation without scrutiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I do see significant citations, which point me in the direction of keep. He also appears to have significant contribution, though it's not listed in Wikipedia. Overall, yes, it is definitely worth it.--Goteramega (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Goteramega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
     Checkuser note: Aisnuropulous, DotDotHand, and Goteramega are confirmed sockpuppets; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PremierePrush. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spoof. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL I don't think I've ever seen such a stupid sockpuppeter before. Sources are connected to the subject and I don't see significant coverage about the subject. Reywas92Talk 00:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This is promotional, not a notable scholar. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no decent coverage in WP:RS Spiderone 07:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. a) Because we shouldn't be entertaining these brazen UPE shenanigans, and b) because the subject isn't notable. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 00:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to lack sufficient independant coverage to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the delete voters. And the sockpuppetry is just pathetic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROF. First off, this is terribly written, and a wholesale re-write would be necessary to bring it up to more than a chatty blog. Secondly, in 2020, eveyobody knows we are not LinkedIn. Finally, we almost never add articles about associate professors, short of perhaps a woman who has suffered discrimination. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 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 merge to Roman Pavlyuchenko#International goals. Consensus is that this topic does not merit a stand-alone list, but can be covered at the bio article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Roman Pavlyuchenko[edit]

List of international goals scored by Roman Pavlyuchenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, so he is the 4th highest goalscorer for Russia. Does that automatically mean he qualifies for a stand-alone list? I'm not sure so I'm taking this to AfD to establish consensus. Seems to be an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Pavlyuchenko's goalscoring does not appear to have amassed enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone list article. I see no reason why this was not just left in the article. Spiderone 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect as y'all see fit. Missvain (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamba[edit]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a school, and there aren't any good sources available. Tried a due WP:BEFORE. Since it fails both GNG & SNG, it doesn't merit a stand-alone article per Wikipedia notability guidelines for schools. There are so many such JNV schools which aren't individually notable but "notable as a whole", but procedural guidelines won't allow "Mass-mutiple AfD". Comments. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prior to this, I had bundled a number of such schools in an AfD which was procedurally closed as kept. Perhaps that was error on my part. But that doesn't change Wikipedia guidelines for schools. Schools aren't inherently notable like degree-awarding colleges. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:15, 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. Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Abdullahi[edit]

Alli Abdullahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has never played at a level that satisfies WP:NFOOTY, see here and here. A trial at Widzew Łódź doesn't count. Did get some news coverage when he got attacked on the pitch while playing for Peckham but I can't see anything outside of that one incident [1] [2] [3]. Spiderone 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Seven Persons. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Ogston[edit]

Cyril Ogston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person founded a hamlet, yes a hamlet, not a town or village but a hamlet. The place has a population of under 200 at present, and was named seven persons, maybe because it was how many residents it had. We really learn nothing else about Ogston from the article. The article is unsourced, and from searching for him it seems most things I found about him existed because there is an article on him in Wikipedia, not the other way around. This article has existed for 16 years, all the way since 2004. That an unsourced article on someone with nothing even close to even a claim to notability has existed for so long seems a blight on Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No coverage of the subject can be found to show notability. This unsourced, unnotable article should be a speedy delete and should not be redirected. Fails WP:GNG as there is zero notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Founding a small settlement isn't a notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Seven Persons. Less Unless (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. While a founder of a settlement could be notable, it's far from automatic. There's no other allegation of notability and no reliable sources at all. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 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 keep. Keeping for now to assume good faith that this article can be improved. It can always be AfD'd again if needed. Let's hope not! Missvain (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Rival[edit]

Hotel Rival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known hotel. Article could need expansion and better sourcing, but that is no reason for deletion. Falls within WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the reasons give above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I could consider a redirect to the appropriate section of Mamma Mia! but the hotel is hardly otherwise notable. Knocking WP:Run-of-the-mill as an essay does not constitute an argument for notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Added one more source. It is an hotel, the sources establish that it is one of the prominent hotels. To redirect this article to Mamma Mia! is not correct, it has no connection. This is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could I please do a bit more research per WP:BEFORE? Bearian (talk) 22:50, 1 December 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. Two sources in article do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. None of the keep votes have offerred any sources or evidence article meets WP:N. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic.   // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:BEFORE. I DM'd my brother in law, who lives nearby, and told me that it is "famous". (I trust him, because he suggested deleting articles about small political parties and is familiar with Wikipedia's policies.) So I went to Google books, found many sources, and I added a section Hotel_Rival#Reviews. This hotel has been reviewed both broadly (by many sources) and in detail (The Daily Telegraph and TWICE by Architectural Digest) amongst tour guides, travel websites, etc. There's lots of more reviews that I could add, but I'm done now. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also added some bits about the history from the Swedish Wikipedia article, but I'm having trouble with the wiki-markup. Can you please help? Bearian (talk) 22:47, 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 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Luther[edit]

Rekha Luther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Plus it is a blp with no clear refs. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article had some attempted references that were incorrectly copied as external links (now fixed). Anyway, the article looks like an attempted promotion for actress/model who is slowly getting her career started. She has a few fashion shoots and background appearances in movies, and a one-paragraph mention in Vogue India (footnote #3), but very little coverage that specifically comments on her career. We can go with "too soon" for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable in any of her roles as an entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:ENT, and WP:SIGCOV. She seems to be very young and at the beginning of her career. There's no way her coverage is either that of a usual; entertainer or significant. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 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 merge to Sylvain Wiltord#International goals. Consensus is that this list can and should be covered at the bio article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Sylvain Wiltord[edit]

List of international goals scored by Sylvain Wiltord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Wiltord's goalscoring does not appear to have amassed enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone list article. I see no reason why this was not just left in the article. He is not even in the top 10 goalscorers for France! Spiderone 19:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article. It's not that big to warrant this as a fork. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 20:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sylvain Wiltord. Long-standing practice is that lists of international goals are warranted only for players who either are or at one time were the top scorer for their national teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Restore the table to Sylvain Wiltord#International goals whence it came, and then redirect to that section. He's nowhere near the top scorer for his country, nor is the content so large to swamp the player's article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Sylvain Wiltord and delete. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:58, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern and Westerham School[edit]

Malvern and Westerham School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication or evidence of notability - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. The school was small, as it appears to have existed in a house-sized building. Article had been prodded previously but was contested by an IP editor. PKT(alk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that the house itself might be seen as notable per WP:NBUILD, but not the school which occupied the house from 1968 to 2???. Whether or not the house is notable is separate from this deletion discussion. PKT(alk) 13:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything on this school even in a local source search. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like passing mentions in school directory is all that exists about this and that's not enough for notability. Maybe the building is notable, but that's for another discussion. Adamant1 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need better sourcing than this to demonstrate notability for a school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small school building (as seen on Google), which does not pass my standards. The building is not 200 years old, which might be considered automatically notable. I would not oppose a redirect to School District 61 Greater Victoria. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Malvern and Westerham weren't under the governance of the Gtr Victoria School District. I would appreciate if somebody can prove this one way or another. PKT(alk) 23:25, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changchun World Trade Center[edit]

Changchun World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At very first glance, I'm not able to easily find any coverage, but that's very possibly just due to my lack of proficiency in Chinese. One database says it's been completed, which would probably make it notable given its scale, but another says it's just a proposed project, which is what the page says. There's no page in Chinese (at least that's been linked through Wikidata), but there is an item on Baidu Baike, the de facto Wikipedia equivalent in China. Unfortunately, it doesn't have good references (and is a promotional mess), so there's not much to go off of (I'm certainly not suggesting we defer to Baidu Baike for determining notability). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The building is in all likelihood incomplete, as there would probably be tons of press coverage available in Chinese and English sources had a skyscraper of this scale be constructed, and the Chinese media would probably not be humble about their accomplishments had this really been constructed. All I could find is information about its geographical location, and blatantly promotional blurbs from unreliable sources like this: 1, failing WP:GNG. And Sdkb, it seems World Trade Center GTC and Changchun World Trade Center are two different buildings: the former is a completed building at 176m, the latter is the subject of this article which is a skyscraper under construction. It seems the baidu article you cited is referring to the former building. Their names are also different in Chinese. (The former is 长春环球贸易中心, the latter is 长春世界贸易中心). -- Dps04 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - if a better article can be sourced apart from a one-line stub, go ahead and recreate it, as the topic should be notable at some point if true. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It appears to be proposed but not yet finished or built. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this fails WP:GNG and should be deleted but with no prejudice against it being recreated if and when it does get coverage of a sufficient standard Spiderone 11:27, 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 no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 01:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989[edit]

Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comparable to other, recently deleted articles for 1989 for other countries: this one as well doesn't establish notability for this exact topic through reliable, independent sources which address this topic significantly (not just one aspect of it, or other years, or other countries).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination) for already deleted ones with similar arguments. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely unsourced and fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Denmark was a member of NATO at the time, it is appropriate to retain an article about the structure of its armed forces at the end of the Cold War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any policy-based reasons? Any indication why this is notable according to our guidelines? Fram (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Danish forces were a key part of Allied Forces Baltic Approaches and not answering comments. BlueD954 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any indication that this subject is actually notable? Your keep doesn't address the actual article (which is specifically for 1989 and the structure, not about the role of the Danish Army in the Allied Forces Baltic Approaches) nor the lack of good independent sources for it. Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the consensuses (consensi?) at the previous AfDs for similar articles make it clear that they are not assumed to be notable without sourcing, and once again we have an article that does not have sufficient sourcing to show that the structure of the Danish Armed Forces specifically in 1989 is a notable enough topic to require its own standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLN is a guideline that concerns lists as compared to categories and navboxes, and has nothing to do with whether or not the topic of a list should be kept on the grounds of notability. As you well know, notability is not inherited down the line - just because 1989 was a notable year in the Cold War does not automatically mean that the structure of the Danish Armed Forces in that year is also notable. Not in the absence of any sources about the topic, anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "deleting these rudimentary lists" is about new lists, not ones 3 year old; and it only deals with the argument "no list needed, we have a category for this", which is not an argument used to delete this. So basically, you are using a strawman argument. You haven't adressed the total lack of notability for the subject (which isn't "1989 as the End of the Cold War"). Fram (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per TimothyBlue.Aielen85 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Whatever the level of sourcing per NNC on each individual item of this list, GNG concerns, we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia. For both navigating the structure of the Danish Armed Forces historically, and for developing more detailed coverage and new pages on the individual entities of the Danish Armed Forces, any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail should be put aside, so the coverage of the Danish Armed Forces can be further developed, and their structure navigated more effectively. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. "we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia."? Articles should have notability on their own, they don't derive their notability or their right of existence from being mentioned in a list. For lists themselves, your quote continues with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.", and also has a link for recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes, which doesn't really match this list here. None of the links here go from a general list to more specific items about the same subject, i.e. none of the linked items is about an element of the Danish army in 1989. An article "structure of the Danish Army" would be a much better fit for this purpose, as it is a more likely search term, a more comprehensive one, and a more notable one. When I look at List of Danish regiments, I don't see 1988, 1989 or 1990 mentioned at all. So the 1989 date is, for the Danish Army structure, not a defining date, not a last or first year for many elements. If you want to have "their structure navigated more effectively", this is a very poor choice, as it is not a logical nor a notable choice. Fram (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In December 1989 the Danish Parliament published its analysis of the Cold War structure and the future organization of the Danish Defense. After the publication the process of realignment and reorganization for the post-Cold War era began. The three book thick report can be found at Book 1, Book 2, Book 3. Therefore for the military history of Denmark 1989 was pivotal year. noclador (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A primary source which doesn't seem to be discussed in any more general article about the Danish army, nor in this one. By the way, the 1989 structure is also included in Structure of the Royal Danish Army for some reason. Fram (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Premeditated Chaos. Although 1989 is a significant year, not all topics about it require standalone articles. Miniapolis 23:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here after seeing WP:ANI#User:Fram abusive behaviour, and before leaving my comment there.

    I agreed, in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 that the article should be merged.

    In this instance I am going to voice a keep. The lede doesn't spell out, but I gather the year 1989 is particularly significant as the end of the Cold War triggered significant changes in the Danish military, and that seems to be a notable topic. A shorter article, with better references, that focussed on those reforms, would be a fine entry in the wikipedia.

    I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, and I will repeat here, that I think it is clear that Noclador has worked hard on these cold war related articles, and the best thing we could all do here is to welcoming and try to help them make future efforts that come closer to the kinds of articles we aim for, like better referencing, and a clearer expression of what is notable about the topics. I am working on an essay Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment which I think is relevant here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability concerns can be addressed. As I see it, there are two potential justifications for keeping this article. The first is that 1989 was a key year in the Cold War from a military perspective. The second is that 1989 represented some kind of Cold War peak for the Danish military. I do not buy the first argument at all - although 1989 was undeniably crucial in the political sense it is only one of half-a-dozen potential dates from a military point of view. 1950 or 1956 or 1979 might all be easier to justify. The choice smacks of the kind of Wargame: European Escalation-style "what-if" enthusiasm about how the two sides would have fared in a war. The second argument may have more weight but I have yet to see it addressed in the discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threadneedles Hotel[edit]

Threadneedles Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ,3,Threadneedles Hotel,0,0*[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed building, so notable per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment From what I can tell, only part of the hotel occupies the historic building, and the article largely ignores the building in favor of talking about the usual non-notable hotel amenities and naming/ownership changes. I question whether the hotel inherits notability from the building. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't. The building is the bit that's notable. The article can be repurposed with the information about the hotel included. But the fact remains that the building clearly meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - listed building Spiderone 10:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The nomination's other assertions are false as the subject clearly passes WP:NBUILD as the place has been "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". The claims by others that there are too many such places is contrary to policy as WP:NOTPAPER clearly states that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grade II listed buildings are NOT automatically notable, that has generally only been given to Grade II* and Grade I. Closing admin, please disregard the above votes, as there is not and never has been consensus that all 340,000 Grade II buildings are automatically notable – they are not exempt from needing significant coverage. It is a generic hotel with no establishment of notability though independent in-depth sources. Reywas92Talk 22:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly your opinion only and calling for the keep votes to be discounted on that basis is arrogant in the extreme. WP:GEOFEAT says differently: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. I see no exception for Grade II listed buildings in England. Listing most definitely qualifies as "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" and "protected status on a national level" no matter what the level. Any statement that it doesn't is no more than an opionion unsupported by guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the listing, though, the Grade II listing is for the Midland Bank building, not the Threadneedles Hotel. I would tend to agree that WP:GEOFEAT would exclude buildings from being automatically notable on the Grade II level as there are absolutely heaps of them, and we can't show that all of them meet WP:GNG - but, that aside, I would argue it's not impossible for the Midland Bank building to be notable, but the Threadneedles Hotel itself is not, the latter should not have its own article, and none of the information in the article would be salvageable in an article on the building. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the hotel isn't notable as a hotel, but given the building it is in is notable per our own guidelines (as I've already pointed out, despite some opinions that they don't cover Grade II, they in fact clearly do as written and no amount of blustering that WP:IDONTLIKEIT will change that), the article should be retained and repurposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the article's not about the building, it's about the hotel, and there's no salvageable information about the building in the article. This isn't a deletion discussion about the building, since that article doesn't exist at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have go with delete. The listing level is a problem in itself, be I have to reiterate that the listed structure is only part of the hotel building: Street View shows that most of the hotel is newly constructed, and while it is to my eye harmonious with the older part, it's not notable as a building, and there's no justification of the hotel as such being notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only coverage I could find was a four or five sentence blurb noting how it was the first hotel in the City, so not necessarily unimportant, but I can't find anything else that's not specifically travel-related like I would expect. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only claim for notability this building has is that it is a Listed building. That warrants a page in Wikidata, and an entry in Wikivoyage, but I am not convinced it also makes the building notable. WP:NBUILD states "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 in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Such coverage has not been presented here (there are some claims of minor awards/listings but no references have been given for them so far, making this seem like an ad). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, let me get this straight, you're citing one section of that guideline to support your view, but ignoring the other section that says "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable"! Which would clearly support this article being retained, since listing obviously meets those criteria. Selective or what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Presumed" doesn't imply that we will have an article on the topic, especially given the fact there are over 300,000 of these buildings all with the same Grade II listing, which unlike Grade I really just means "seek permission before modifying." SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, are you claiming that Grade II listing does not fall into the category of "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level"? Because that is blatant nonsense. And if they do fall into that category then they very clearly meet the notability guideline and any argument otherwise is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Presumed" doesn't imply that we will have an article on the topic... This is a ridiculous argument. What's the point of a notability guideline then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It might not - that seems like too inclusive of a SNG, since it would allow for 400,000 articles about English buildings without questioning it. But you're mistaken about the presumption - the presumption means we can take a look at an article and decide it's not notable, even if it meets an SNG. It's not a free ticket. And in this case, when the article is on a business and not a building, the business tore the majority of the building down, and the article doesn't include anything salvageable about the building, delete's not an inappropriate outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Marsh, Stefanie (2002-08-08). "The place for those who want to show off - Travel". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
    2. Morris, Tom (2013-10-18). "Tom Morris enjoys a weekend at threadneedles hotel in London's highly underrated square mile". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
    3. "Western Morning News: Get in step with China's warriors". Western Morning News. 2007-11-03. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
    4. Parkes, Diane (2009-04-08). "Fascinating insight into ruthless shah - London exhibition focuses on life of Iranian leader which still has resonances today: British Break". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
    5. Falconer, Kieran (2002-03-02). "Best of the rest - Capital places to stay if you have style". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Marsh, Stefanie (2002-08-08). "The place for those who want to show off - Travel". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      With just 70 rooms, this is EC2's first boutique hotel and it takes its claim seriously: the compulsorily chic staff, the profusion of tan leather (a ride in the lift feels like a trip in a Tanner Krolle briefcase), the contemporary 1970s-style design (lots of dark wood, chrome and walls painted the colour of porridge) - all of which conspire to make the initiated guest feel as if she has stumbled into the Sloane Street branch of Joseph. ... It cost the Eton Group (which also owns the Colonnade in Little Venice, West London, and the Academy in the more central Bloomsbury district) Pounds 19 million to refurbish this place and you can smell every last penny.

    2. Morris, Tom (2013-10-18). "Tom Morris enjoys a weekend at threadneedles hotel in London's highly underrated square mile". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      One of those is the boutique five-star Threadneedles Hotel located only a short walk from the tube station past the Royal Exchange and the Lord Mayor of London's HQ. ... The hotel is a former bank found in the shadow of the magnificent Gherkin and is within walking distance of the Bank of England, [a list of other locations], so there is plenty to keep visitors busy. The lobby of the hotel boasts a stained-glassed dome dating back to 1856, harking back to its use as the head office of London, City and Midland Bank. The stylish Bonds Bar attached to the hotel even has the original banking counter. ... Factfile Threadneedles has 74 elegantly designed guest rooms, suites and studios.

    3. "Western Morning News: Get in step with China's warriors". Western Morning News. 2007-11-03. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      The entrance to Threadneedles Hotel is so discreet that I almost miss it. Only a metal doorplate gives any indication that this is a hotel. ... Threadneedles is a chic five-star hotel, converted from a Victorian banking hall. The designers have capitalised on the original features while adding modern furniture and soft lighting. The original stained glass hand-painted atrium is the centrepiece of the lounge and we admire it as we sip a glass of champagne. ... If the point of five-star hotels is to leave the real world behind, then Threadneedles succeeds, from the smooth Egyptian cotton sheets to sink into, to aromatherapy bubbles in the bath and delicious food in the restaurant

    4. Parkes, Diane (2009-04-08). "Fascinating insight into ruthless shah - London exhibition focuses on life of Iranian leader which still has resonances today: British Break". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      WHEN a hotel room has its own guest book you know you are somewhere special. So after we deposited our bags in the Loft suite of the Threadneedles Hotel, in London, I took a little peek at its previous occupants. ... The hotel is situated in the capital's financial district within a few minutes' walk of St Paul's Cathedral. ... Classed a "boutique" hotel, Threadneedles is part of the Eton chain and is a really beautiful building. Above its atrium sits a 19th century glass dome, which the hotel proudly tells us has "survived two world wars".

    5. Falconer, Kieran (2002-03-02). "Best of the rest - Capital places to stay if you have style". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Threadneedles Hotel

      ... This new boutique hotel is minutes away from the Bank of England and used to be the headquarters of the Midland Bank. A contemporary style pervades, giving a tranquil feel. No doubt the bar and restaurant will be a hot spot when it opens in late March. Pricey. Doubles from Pounds 311.

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

    Cunard (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned that every single one of those are reviews, which unlike say an academic book review might not be truly independent of the hotel. I've written a few hotel articles recently, and any notable hotel should receive coverage above and beyond reviews - adding information in such as "survived two world wars" would not be independent in the context of the article. I'm finding it difficult to say WP:NORG has been met here based on those sources. (I do appreciate the hatted sources though, cheers.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reviewing the sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews says:

    Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel.

    It lists three criteria: (1) Be significant, (2) Be independent, and (3) Be reliable. It is my view that The Times review and the Bristol Post review meet these three criteria.
    1. Be significant: "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products."

      The Times reviewer visited Threadneedles Hotel and received a tour of the room. The article provides broader context and draws comparisons by noting, "the compulsorily chic staff, the profusion of tan leather (a ride in the lift feels like a trip in a Tanner Krolle briefcase), the contemporary 1970s-style design (lots of dark wood, chrome and walls painted the colour of porridge) - all of which conspire to make the initiated guest feel as if she has stumbled into the Sloane Street branch of Joseph".

      The Bristol Post reviewer visited the Threadneedles Hotel with his partner. The article provides broader context by noting, "The lobby of the hotel boasts a stained-glassed dome dating back to 1856, harking back to its use as the head office of London, City and Midland Bank. The stylish Bonds Bar attached to the hotel even has the original banking counter."

    2. Be independent: "many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. ... Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent. ... Therefore, editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity.

      I consider The Times's Stefanie Marsh and the Bristol Post's Tom Morris to have an "established reputation for independence and objectivity".

    3. Be reliable: "the reviews must be published in reliable sources that provide editorial oversight and strive to maintain objectivity".

      The Times and the Bristol Post are reliable sources.

    Cunard (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can definitively say a company is notable based on two reviews. As I've noted, a notable hotel should have many available sources apart from reviews discussing its opening, closing, architecture, importance to the community... All you can get from the Marsh review is the cost and room count on construction (a lot of it is "the hotel said..." so its independence is questionable) and all you can really use in the article from the Morris review is the fact the hotel has an atrium and the bar has the original banking counter. I think we're toeing around notability here, but I don't think we're there yet, and I'd like to see other articles on construction or architecture before changing my vote - articles we can actually use to develop the article in a non-promotional way. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sten Adventures Book 7: Vortex[edit]

Sten Adventures Book 7: Vortex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2015. Attempted to find coverage on ProQuest, EBSCO, and JSTOR (my go-tos for writing articles about books) with various search terms to no avail. Google brought up a single article on Tor.com which is about the series as a whole, not just this book. Nothing significant on Google Books or Google Scholar, either. Not seeing a way this meets WP:NBOOK. Hog Farm Bacon 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not seeing any reviews or anything that would help it pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) or broader GNG. PS. I prodded all volumes but the first one as I couldn't find a single review that discusses them :( (I did find a decent review for the first book and the overarching series, which I added to the relevant articles). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not seeing any third party sources either. Does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street (disambiguation)[edit]

Sesame Street (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are all related to the TV show. This is a dis-ambiguation page, not a list of things related to Sesame Street. One would expect it to have things unrelated to the TV show that merely share the same name; that's what dis-ambiguation pages are for. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looks to me like the TV show, the fictional street itself, and the comic strip are all known at times simply as "Sesame Street". They may all be related, but all three are valid search terms, and this helps readers. Since this appears to be helpful, I see no reason to delete this. Hog Farm Bacon 16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As mentioned by Hog Farm, there are at least three distinct articles on subjects simply called "Sesame Street" (the show, the comic, and the location itself), so a disambiguation would be appropriate to keep. Rorshacma (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cleaned it up to move the things just related to but not ambiguous to the see also section, but the remaining two are sufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Hog Farm and JHunterJ edit, this is a useful page.   // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The cleaned-up page is worth keeping. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a main subject, but a hatnote would be too complex and confusing, and a disambiguation page is a better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seeing no problem in having it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I added a few more stuff related to Sesame Street. A disambiguation page can either have associated titles that are either related or non-related to the primary topic. Georgia guy, where is the proof of deleting this disambiguation page? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Techtro Swades United FC season[edit]

2020–21 Techtro Swades United FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed, article clearly fails WP:NSEASONS criteria along with WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Let me ask you guys one simple thing. If sunday league football clubs have articles on wikipedia,then why not a single 'Indian sunday club' can have an article?Falcon with appendix (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have replied to you on my talk page. Govvy (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Devi (journalist)[edit]

Kavita Devi (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable journalist, fails WP:GNG. Sources are WP:ROUTINE and trivial mention. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple sources exist, proving notability. [4] [5] [6] KyloRen3 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm the creator of the page so I'll refrain from a !vote. But please hear me out and bear with me as this might get long. I created the article as part of the Women in Red project in an effort to counter the systemic bias of under-representation of certain demographics. In this case the subject is a journalist who is both a woman and a Dalit ("untouchable"); likely the most notable Dalit woman journalist to begin with. Regarding establishing notability itself, my argument and reasoning was the following:
WP:JOURNALIST outlines additional criteria through which notability can be established, three of them state that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", that "[t]he person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", and that "[t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."
Kavita Devi is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Khabar Lahariya,[1] which is considered a pioneer in the field of rural journalism in India.[2][3] She has been frequently conferred with and cited to by the more mainstream media,[4][5][6][7] and even has her life partially documented over multiple pages in a book on women's lives in India.[8][9] This is certainly more coverage than any typical journalist would receive and in favor of meeting the aforementioned criteria. The founders of Khabar Lahariya have also collectively won the UNESCO King Sejong Literacy Prize and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediapersons.[10] This should make her partially complaint to fulfill the criteria under WP:ANYBIO as well.
On the other hand, WP:GNG states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The article in question here has sources where the main topic is Kavita Devi, this is explicitly non trivial coverage. In addition, WP:BASIC even states that "[i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." This is demonstrated by the sources in the article as well.
Moreover, how does WP:ROUTINE even apply here? It's a section under notability guideline for events and not of people (see Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage § Establishing notability for "people" vs "events"). Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kavita Devi on the jobs that will define India's future". Quartz India. 12 February 2020.
  2. ^ Pande, Manisha (21 January 2013). "Writing from the roots". Business Standard.
  3. ^ "Newspaper by rural Indian women wins UN literacy award". The Hindu. Indo-Asian News Service. 4 August 2020.
  4. ^ Ratnam, Dhamini (9 November 2019). "'People wouldn't think of me as a journalist': Kavita Devi, editor-in-chief, Khabar Lahariya". Hindustan Times.
  5. ^ "On Babri Masjid demolition anniversary, there is a need for us to reflect individually on the Ayodhya dispute". Firstpost. Khabar Lahariya. 6 December 2019.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  6. ^ Murti, Aditi (31 October 2020). "Tell Me More: Talking Media Ethics and Representation With Kavita Devi". The Swaddle.
  7. ^ Hazra, Nivedita (11 November 2019). "In Conversation With Kavita Devi: The Editor-In-Chief Of Khabar Lahariya". FII English.
  8. ^ Pande, Pooja (2020). Momspeak: The Funny, Bittersweet Story of Motherhood in India. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-349778-3.
  9. ^ "From Sex Worker Mothers to Lesbian Parents: The Changing Face of Motherhood in India". News18. 10 May 2020.
  10. ^ Das Gupta, Annesha (17 April 2016). "Riding on the waves of emancipation – Khabar Lahariya". NewsGram.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 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. The one "keep" does not identify which sources specifically they believe establish notability. Sandstein 09:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Crnkić[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kenan Crnkić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Though this discussion is old but the page was deleted as per deletion discussion in 2014. Again it is tried to publish in 2018 and deleted as per A7. Strong indication of paid and COI edits. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Economist that has published 3 or 4 books, nothing beyond routine texts it seems. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable, agree with Oaktree. BlueD954 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have created this article and believe that the subject meets the notability guidelines per WP:BIO & WP:GNG as covered by various leading publishers. In addition to this, he is a known motivatioal speaker in Bosnia, having authored several books which have got discussed in various media.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Automobiles[edit]

PHP Automobiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable automotive company. Fails WP:COMPANY. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not evaluated this against the claims in the nomination. However, it has significant content. If the result is "delete" I have a weak recommendation either "delete with option to refund to draft: provided it goes through a review process" OR "redirect to parent company PHP Family and lock, keeping history, with option to ask to have it moved to draft and go through review process later" so that 1) some content can be merged into parent company's article and 2) if and when the topic becomes notable, there is a ready-made starting place. Had this not been so highly influenced by a COI-editor, this would be a strong recommendation instead of a weak one. Again, this is NOT a "!vote" on whether to delete or not, only a "weak recommendation" of what to do if the eventual consensus is to delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Lacks coverage to pass WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per nom. Time being redirect to its parent company would be better.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:03, 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. WP:SOLDIER is in fact an essay, which means it does not represent a community-wide consensus, and accordingly, the two "keep" opinions based on it can't be given much weight. As to general notability, consensus is that the subject doesn't meet its sourcing requirements. Sandstein 08:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. No independent reliable source mentions the subject other than as a listing. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO as he does not have a qualifying rank, nor a qualifying award - though this was disputed in last AfD. However, meeting SOLDIER or ANYBIO merely suggests the possibility that a subject may be notable so it can be assumed reliable sources are available. If those sources are not available, per GNG, then the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. Created by a SPA as a promotional article. Fails to attract readers. Previous AfD closed as no-consensus. SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We may have a problem. I'm just checking the few details we have in the article. I was looking into his status as commodore, because he was given that rank before 1997, so it would not have been a substantive rank. In checking the sources in the article I discover there is an error. The article says: "He was president of the Royal Navy Rugby Union between 1997 and 1998", and that is sourced to this, which is a different Commodore Lewis - that is not Doug Lewis, that is David Lewis. We can see from the London Gazette that the subject was a commodore in 1992, but we don't know for how long. Before 1997 a commodore was a temporary appointment. And even after 1987 a commodore is not a flag officer. Flag_officer#United_Kingdom cites the Royal Navy as clarifying that a "Flag Officer" is "An officer of the rank of Rear-Admiral or above." and Commodore (Royal Navy) is a rank "above captain and below rear admiral". So we have uncertainties as to how long he was a commodore, and we have uncertainties regarding the details in the article because of the few references we can check, one appears to have mistaken him for the closely named David R. S. Lewis - easy to confuse with Doug R. S. Lewis. But we do know that his rank is not enough to make a presumption of notability, even if he kept the rank after 1987. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief. We've already had this discussion. Commodores are not flag officers, but they hold an entirely equivalent rank and position to flag officers in other countries. It is utterly preposterous to claim that an RN commodore does not meet WP:SOLDIER because he does not have "admiral" in his rank title, whereas a USN rear admiral (lower half), a directly equivalent rank with the same authority, does because he does. Commodore being an appointment rather than a rank was merely a peculiarity of RN ranking. Functionally it was a rank and in general, once a commodore always a commodore. It was no more temporary than its equivalents elsewhere. I'm amazed that this argument is still being trotted out as a reason to delete commodores and brigadiers (note that their RAF equivalent, the air commodore, is an air officer and therefore it would be impossible to argue that it does not meet WP:SOLDIER). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. BlueD954 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while his rank arguably satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just an essay not a policy or guideline despite what certain Users like to assert or imply and he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage about the individual: we require substantive independent sources for notability, which are not shown. Director Personnel Policy is not a significant position bestowing automatic notability, even if his service had reached a particular rank. A "presumption" of coverage in an SNG is not a guarantee of coverage or notability if such is not found. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why do we even bother having SNGs? What purpose do they serve if we're going to simply ignore them and default to WP:GNG every time? The answer is, we don't. WP:SNG: A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet this SNG clearly says "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline." It also says " Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article..." This SNG is not a free pass to avoid any significant coverage sources altogether, and actually bothering to read the whole SNG makes clear that this person is not notable for a stand-alone article! Reywas92Talk 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Staceydolxx, Buckshot06, Nosebagbear, Icewhiz, Gbawden, and Bearian: All involved in previous discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - putting aside whether a Commodore at the time was notable by rank alone - as Lewis fails substantive coverage, did not command in combat, and did nothing else particular of significance (fails SOLDIER 6, 7, and 8). If this was a really meaty well-referenced article about a senior Supply Branch officer, I'd support retention (that is, it would have to have lots of well-referenced details about what he actually did in his career). But there's no substantive coverage of what he did in the partial military appointments list given. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be because he largely served in the pre-internet era and information is far more difficult to find! Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a repository of internet era information only. And how interesting that you're yet another editor who ignores the clear notability established by WP:ANYBIO #1. Britain thought he was sufficiently notable to award him the CBE, which is not handed out in cornflakes packets (only 100-200 awarded every year), but some Wikipedia editors think he's not sufficiently notable for their project. As I have said before, maybe he should have instead devoted his life to kicking a ball around a field (and once, and only once, done it in front of a few thousand people); then he'd be considered notable! But, as it is, all he did was achieve high rank in the Royal Navy, receive a very prestigious national honour and head major national and international charitable organisations, so obviously he's not notable because not that many people have written about him. Wikipedia sadly becomes ever more ludicrous! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am voting delete this time, on this evidence. If a revised version is put together with lots of deadtree material and gives a full picture of his service career, would be utterly great to vote to keep next time. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I stand by what I said last time - I've checked and the article and he is still not notable. 10:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Oops! Didn't realise I wasn't logged in! ツStacey (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of what people repeatedly claim, we have always held, by WP:CONSENSUS that a flag officer is notable, and he is, in fact, a flag officer. The argument that "WP:SOLDIER is only an essay" is spurious and disingenous - it's an essay that is written to provide a shorthand for expressing that consensus. I also can't help but suspect that if he was, say, a Bangladeshi one-star, or perhaps one from Uruguay, with the article sourced to exactly the same level, many of the same editors who !vote for deletion of subjects like this would be falling over themselves to !vote keep on the basis of CSB. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting once again that the discussion that led to the SOLDIER essay: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography is on the WP:SOLDIER page and part of the consensus in that discussion was that: "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article" Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article". (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 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 redirect to Discovery Asia-Pacific. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eve (TV channel)[edit]

Eve (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a TV channel, sourced only to its own Facebook page since creation in 2014. The corresponding Thai article gave no help. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing (except lots of false positives; it is not a easy name to search). Fails WP:GNG. Redirection to Discovery Asia-Pacific, its owner, where it has a bare listing, would be an alternative to deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chitthi (2020)[edit]

Chitthi (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely and utterly non-notable (as of yet) web series, I removed a number of sources because they're all the exact same press release and I can find no independent coverage or reviews. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you share some of this significant coverage? My current stance is delete due to lack of coverage but please ping me if coverage is found Spiderone 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the producer's article has now been deleted. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 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 Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. As per the former deletion discussion, this person is, in fact, notable. (non-admin closure) Opalzukor (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moulton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dave Moulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the WP:BIO general criteria 1 and 2. Probably fails WP:N due to "significant coverage". Last nom was in 2005. Opalzukor (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 12:20, 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. Sadads (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Elderson[edit]

Frank Elderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a non notable banker who fails GNG. The article is substantially sourced to primary and press release articles. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Where do I Start. 1. The article was created about 5 days ago, so why not providing feedback and requests specific improvements first, before jumping to AFD procedure? 2. As written in the article, the guy is set to become board member of the European Central Bank and vice chair of the ECB supervisory board (a decision which will be confirmed around Dec 11th). The ECB is one of the most powerful EU institution, so the notability of this policymaker will unavoidably grow. 3. About sources, I'm happy to add more sources, although i would like to point out that the press releases are ones from the European Parliament, not from the current employer of Mr Elderson. Best wishes Stanjourdan (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No strong showing of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather flowery descriptions used, seems to be a non-notable functionary. Oaktree b (talk)
Please feel free to remove the "flowery" stuff.Stanjourdan (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand everyone is not familiar with EU politics and institutional affairs over here, but people sitting in the executive board of the European Central Bank are not "non-notable functionnary", but powerful decision makers with wide media exposure. Furthermore, not every central banker in Europe is chairing an organisation (ie. the NGFS) that gathers 75+ central banks and IMF as members - this simple fact does make Elderson notable within the finance sector. Mr Elderson's appointment to the ECB is pending a few formalities, but once he is appointed, he will be a notable EU official - he will basically be the number 2 chief of banking supervision in the Eurozone. So in a nutshell, if we delete this, we will undoubtfully have to review and revert this decision in a few weeks/months once he takes his position at the ECB. So we might as well give this page some time before making a decision to delete or not this article. Stanjourdan (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Stanjourdan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major role at ECB.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Duru[edit]

Joy Duru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not yet pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG as has only played at youth level according to these sources [8] [9] [10]. Would recommend deletion for now but could be sent to draft if people believe that Duru is going to meet either NFOOTY or GNG very soon. Spiderone 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nomination, I don't see any indication of passing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our already ludicrously low inclusion standard for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who has only been called up to train with the Nigeria Olympic team (no appearances yet). Also fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Moving this here from the talk page. Spiderone 22:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Delete per WP:JUNK not notable and enough detailed information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
What an interesting choice by an editor with admin privileges. Can you explain your rationale for pasting the above comment from the Talk page Spiderone? Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Not an admin.... I confused you with another editor who acts very similar .... still interested in your rationale. Hmlarson (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was clearly intended to be in this discussion as per Eric's edit summary Spiderone 07:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUNK is also an essay. The comment is useless. Please use better judgement. Hmlarson (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't approve of WP:JUNK being used in any deletion discussion but AfD is not censored and everyone is allowed to state their views. Spiderone 10:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this is there any other sources providing more than a passing mention for Duru? Spiderone 07:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Danelia (Youtube personality)[edit]

Giorgi Danelia (Youtube personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The references used in the article provide trivial coverage and are irrelevant to the corresponding text. M4DU7 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:21, 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 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Akther Parvez[edit]

Mohammed Akther Parvez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any sources establishing that this person meets WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In addition to above deletion notes, the article was recently declined at AFC as "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." Created by a user with a clear COI.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entire article seems to be relying on this one source which is not sufficient at all Spiderone 13:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other then some passing mention & couples of interview, no significant coverage in Bengali either. This is a promotional article created by paid editor/their employee. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure vanity piece, zero indication of notability. The FE 'article' (being the only one that looks even remotely RS) has clearly been written by the subject himself or his publicist, and makes even PRK media look unbiased! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 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 Procedural keep. There is a consensus that the notability of these individuals must be discussed individually. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only these footballers played 3 or 4 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 50 AFD discussions (accessible through the AFD link above) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. And mind you, I declined to nominate the players with 6 or 7 league games for deletion.

I am also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Football players should be individually assessed and not grouped. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of these sports players comes even close to meeting inclusion guidelines. Group nominations are perfectly acceptable in such cases and we should stop allowing proceduralism to weigh down Wikipedia with unneeded articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - agree with Govvy, in cases where the argument is whether GNG is met or not, there should be individual consideration, otherwise the discussion will turn into a mess. GiantSnowman 18:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep with no prejudice against relisting separately. In a case where we are looking to delete BLPs that technically pass NFOOTY, I think separate discussions for each individual is the only way forward Spiderone 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep These should be nominated individually, if at all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:50, 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 procedural keep. There is a consensus that the notability of these individuals should be discussed individually rather than in a group nomination. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junichi Watanabe (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

Junichi Watanabe (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only these footballer played 3 or 4 games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 50 AFD discussions (accessible through the AFD link above) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. And mind you, I declined to nominate the players with 6 or 7 games for deletion.

I am also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Regardless of connectivity and similarity of each article. Each player should be individually nominated, as a lot of a time, incorrect research shows that players part to different paths and there is more separate information out there. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of these articles come even close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - agree with Govvy, in cases where the argument is whether GNG is met or not, there should be individual consideration, otherwise the discussion will turn into a mess. GiantSnowman 18:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep with no prejudice against relisting separately. In a case where we are looking to delete BLPs that technically pass NFOOTY, I think separate discussions for each individual is the only way forward Spiderone 16:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Flohr[edit]

Nina Flohr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Coverage is all (announcement from press releases?) of a resort yet to be built, an Observatory yet to observe. Past 10 years' career not notable. Revealing a stylishly jet set life is not notability, IMHO. Significant coverage of philanthropy not present. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Founding a yet-to-open eco-resort and being engaged to the Prince are hardly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. No better sourcing found. Edwardx (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and other relevant notability criteria.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the editor. The eco-resort while not open, is constructed - and it's unique sustainable production has been featured in titles like the FT, NY Times and The Architects Newspaper (all cited). The Ocean Observatory has "observed", there are two research papers cited, including PNAS, which is one of the most referenced scientific publications, internationally. It is the first long-term African Ocean Observatory monitoring multiple ecosystems for climate change - which is philanthropic. Her marriage to a Prince follows existing wiki pages like Princess Mary of Denmark - who had no career or notoriety pre wedding. I previously created a page for designer Christoper Raeburn who had none of the notoriety or substantial coverage, yet received no objection from Wiki. (He now is very well know, also for sustainability). I respect the process. Edianne32 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2020 (AEST)
  • Keep: Nina Flohr has a rich history and concur that her appointment to become part of the Greek royal family poses a strong case for her to have visibility to the public. Her philanthropic works should be noted and publicised. GRob89 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2020 (AEST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and keep Missvain (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947[edit]

Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page deals with a non-notable short-lived constitution of a former princely state of India. An WP:NPOV treatment of the subject is already available at Manipur (princely state)#Incorporation into India. There is not much that this page adds other than dubious POVs, from nationalist web sites and an article in Beijing Law Review published by the dubious Scientific Research Publishing. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This act was adopted by ruler of Sovereign Manipur( which short lived between 14th Aug 1947 to October 1949) and validity of the act is still highly debated as stated by experts.This act and constitution come in effect before Indian constitution come in effect in 1950.as for Chinese law firm that source can be removed but I kept it because it was written by a notable google scholar learned in law.[11]this article is properly written without violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RSis not violating WP:PG,here is a link from google books which shows the article notability [12],[13], do point out my mistakes if I made any , I am ready to open discussion ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Constitution of India contains both a Union constitution and a state constitution. The latter was negotiated in consultation with the princely states of India, and the entire process is transparently explained in Political integration of India, a featured article. It is the state constitution part of the Constitution of India that presently applies to Manipur, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that it is wanting in anyway.
Given that this page is only of historical interest, if there is a proper study of the constitutional issues appearing in RS and the page summarises them, it would be of value. But as I see it, it is only a proxy for POV pushing, as indicated by terms like "Sovereign Manipur". (Manipur was a British protectorate during the British Raj, and acceded to India before India's independence. So whatever is meant by "Sovereign" does not agree with the common understanding of that term.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page can be improved,I was quite busy with other things so I had little time to focus on this page,but I will do my best to bring this article to a notable wiki article...well Manipur was indeed sovereign for a short period of time after British Empire gave its freedom on 14th Aug 1947,one day before India independence...,please quote this line the King of princely state were given choice by British to either stay independent or join india or pakistan but the King choose to remain independent.Manipur had been sovereign for more than 1000 year before losing against British Empire in 1891.also "The section 9 (5) of Indian Independence Act, 1947 says " No order shall be made under this section, by the Governor of :any Province, after the appointed day, or, by the Governor-General, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or such earlier date as may be determined, in the case of either Dominion,. by 'any law of the Legislature of that Dominion." . Thus the retrospective effect of any order made under section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 could not remove the Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA), 1947.".Manipur acceded to India only after 1949,with the controversial force Merger agreement of Shillong as claimed by many experts.again The section 8 of the Instrument of Accession says clearly " Nothing in this instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the state or save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any power , authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or validity of any law at present in force in this State.",

Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA)-1947 was never repealed or dissolved by the Indian Parliament or by the Manipur State Assembly. By this act Maharajah of Manipur was no longer the supreme head of Manipur in 1949,he already devolved his power to the elected council of ministers.He was only a nominal head just like President of India.

And these lines are quoted from work of a google scholar I had given link in the article

The fact that the Manipur Merger Agreement of 21 September 1949 was con- cluded by procuring threats or use of force is illustrated by the following events: The Telegram dated 18th September, 1949 sent to VP Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India for Sardar Patel, Deputy Prime Minister, Birla House, Bombay by Sri Prakasa, Governor of Assam reads: “… Had discussions with His Highness of Manipur this morning. HH threatens returning to Manipur without holding any discussions or signing agreement. HH must not under any circumstance be allowed to return to Manipur with his advisers and I have accordingly instructed police to de- tain here his party if they attempt to return before signing of agreement . Please telegraph immediately repeat immediately authority for detention of HH and advisors under Regulation III or by whatever other means you consider might be appropriate . Have already warned sub-area to be pre- pared for any eventuality in Manipur. Grateful for further instructions ...”

(Das, 1973).54"

last but not least it is said that there had not been any legal proclamation made either by Parliament of India or Manipur State Assembly which made Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 dissolved or repealed.[1]The act is highly debated for its validity till today.Manipur is a state included in North East India only after 1972,before it was a union territory since 1956 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 03:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ MATHUR, AJEET N (2012). "Search for Inclusive Growth amidst Exclusive Appropriations in Manipur". Economic and Political Weekly. 47 (9): 61–66. ISSN 0012-9976.
  • Delete: I dont see this article being more than few lines ever. Earlier the article was a copy paste of website e-pao.net and was trimmed down to avoid WP:COPYVIO . The author has a history of copy pasting material from the same website into different articles. possible WP:COI with Independent Manipur movement and SPA for the same. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There are mentions, but not SIGCOV. Sources in article are not IS RS secondary sources.   // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is easy to find RS. Nothing wrong with short articles. Srnec (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above sources and changes are about the history of this period, not the legislation Manipur State Constitution Act 1947. To establish notability you need SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. If there is a suggestion for a redirect target or move idea, please propose. The article is completely lacking information on the Act. There are no details about how it was written, it's provisions and how they relate to the circumstances, how it was received and what impact it had on events that followed. This article needs to be about the Act, not just a stub transformed into a speedy content fork of a history page because ISRS SIGCOV can't be found for the actual subject.   // Timothy :: talk  03:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is no more a single or few stub line I have added information about the act and it addressed the subject directly,further suggestion is welcomed.have a look at[14] this revised content.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 05:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This law has caused significant debate and resulted in long-standing disagreements regarding Manipur's status within India - it provided for Manipur's independence as a separate state (before merging with India); the Act continues to be the basis for claims for Manipur's independence or further autonomy. No doubt the current status of the article is woeful, but that is irrelevant for an AfD discussion. Multiple reliable sources discuss the act and its impact, indicating passing of the GNG.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ Banerjee, S. K. (1958). "MANIPUR STATE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1947". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 19 (1): 35–38. ISSN 0019-5510.
  2. ^ Noni, Arambam; Sanatomba, Kangujam. Colonialism and Resistance: Society and State in Manipur. Routledge. pp. 212–125. ISBN 978-1-317-27066-9.
  3. ^ Kshetri, Rajendra. The Emergence of Meetei Nationalism: A Study of Two Movements Among the Meeteis. Mittal Publications. pp. 187–198. ISBN 978-81-8324-116-8.
  4. ^ WHY PRE-MERGER POLITICAL STATUS FOR MANIPUR: Under the Framework of the Instrument of Accession, 1947. Coalition for Indigenes' Rights Campaign (CIRCA). 2018.
  5. ^ Gurumayum, Maheshwar (19 June 2018). "The Manipur merger agreement & The Manipur state constitution act, 1947". Imphal Times.
  6. ^ "Manipur Separatists Announce Exiled Government In UK". Outlook India/. 30 October 2019.
  7. ^ "Manipur's independence legal, says Manipur State Council". www.thepeopleschronicle.in.
  8. ^ "Manipur's merger with India illegal, alleges London-based 'govt-in-exile'". Assam Tribune. 31 December 2019.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This comment illustrates how this page is a WP:POVFORK. Its advocates intend to use it for discussing the issues regarding Manipur (princely state), its status in 1947, the legality of its merger etc. This page is being created as a WP:COATRACK, seemingly about one topic but a proxy for discussing something else. Quoting from WP:POVFORK:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

So !votes that do not address this issue are missing the point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kautilya3: To me, your comment focusses on content and (perceived) editors' intentions, both of which are irrelevant for a discussion at AfD. I reiterate, the issue at hand is whether or not there are reliable sources which contain significant coverage related to the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What another editor does elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, please focus on whether or not reliable sources establish notability of the subject of the article. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing suggests independent notability of the act beyond the wider issue of the princely state, accession etc. which are best covered in its own article (as we do with other Indian princely states), the article only appears to have been created to shoehorn in a fraught point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWP:Otherstuffexists is not relevant here. The contents of the article are not relevant. The question is whether there are reliable sources to satisfy BASIC/GNG; discussion should focus on that issue, please.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Kautilya3: Gotitbro was arguing that because other princely state articles exist this article is not necessary; I was noting such an argument is irrelevant here (an issue, among others, opined on at WP:Otherstuffexists). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Gotitbro referred to this princely state's article, Manipur (princely state), of which this article is a FORK. Referring to the parent article here is entirely legitimate. It is in fact the crux of this AfD. The policy page WP:Otherstuffexists warns you not to cite that page without explaining how it applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an essay, not policy. Gotitbro may well have started in the singluar, but they concluded with: "as we do with other Indian princely states". None of which changes the point that there's a lot of commentary on intentions and content and very little from the delete !votes addressing the issue of whether or not notability is achieved with reliable sources. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW claims here that the article is a POVFORK is only to assert a lack of NPOV (which is a content issue), a FORK in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. The WP:CFORK guideline outlines appropriate forking - the sourcing both in the article and here satisfies WP:RELAR. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Goldsztajn: The current state of the article is not good, but the subject is notable and there are sources to allow for expansion. Zarasophos (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article, written from a Manipur POV, differs from Manipur (princely state)#Incorporation into India which gives the Indian POV. I consider that the best solution would be to have a rather fuller account of the context and subsequent events, covering the history of Manipur 1947-62 from princely state to being a full Indian state. This is only covered rather briefly, so that there is scope to expnad this into a "main" article, linked to the suggested merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be withdrawing the nomination because I have now found enough sources to write a decent article on it. Contrary to expectations, it is not going to have any "Manipuri POV" in it because the so-called "Manipuri POV" is basically misinformation and propaganda. The real Manipuris are happy leading normal lives, doing their jobs and voting in elections. It is only the axe-grinders that come to Wikipedia to waste our time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that all POVs are welcome at Manipur (princely state) and Manipur, as long as they are reliably sourced and provide authentic information. There is no need to create POVFORKS for that purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The real manipuri!!??...who are you implying that too...how do you define a manipuri?..the term Manipur itself is an alien imposition after 17th century..its the mainland indian propagating such lies,,,,North east part of India historically culturally religiously very unique ....its good that you are withrawing the nomination..Stop the vote propaganda the one living in Manipur know the real deal,how fair the voting are and what influenced the voters...CAA is a big example..the natives are against it but the elected politician of NE voted in favour of CAA....ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 23:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 80% Manipuris who voted in the 2014 Indian general election in Manipur, for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hahahaha vote again!!!!..time and situation change every minute..I pointed out how the elected person differ from the general native demand and opinion....I hope an admin with a fair mind give a conclusion to this AFD discussion..ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 03:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - nominator has withdrawn Spiderone 18:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Richards (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Richards (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It might have been useful to review the earlier AfD. Richards met Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY (both as an all-time leading scorer in the CHL and as a CHL First Team All-Star) in the 2011 AfD. He still does so today. Ravenswing 10:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:, subject meets WP:NHOCKEY #4 as outlined above and at the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Richards (ice hockey). Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is 10 years old and is still a permastub. On the assumption that some would expect SIGCOV to be found after 10 years, I searched Newspapers.com but didn't find much. The best I could find were this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ravenswing: @Flibirigit: I have read the previous AfD, and the page passed NHOCKEY as written at the time but fails the current guidelines. The CHL is not a mentioned league in any of the current NHOCKEY criteria. Joeykai (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last Rites (blog)[edit]

Last Rites (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2015. References are either unaffiliated or unreliable, and I'm not finding anything. This just doesn't seem like a notable blog. Hog Farm Bacon 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Refs are to dead links and the last update seems to pertain to 2015. Would need much more current and notable links to pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 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. Consensus is that this organization fails WP:GNG. If it is also active under another name, as noted by Fences&Windows at the end, and if it is more notable under that name, then an article could be created under that name. Sandstein 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Integrity Fund[edit]

Voter Integrity Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a grouping of various pro-Trump individuals who came together after Joe Biden won the 2020 election and who are trying to substantiate Trump's baseless election fraud claims. The group has no notability aside from being covered in relation to this one event in the last two weeks. The long-term relevance of the group is unclear. The level of stability and organization of the group is also unclear. The "group" may disappear in one week, it may fragment etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Trump's claims are not baseless if there actually is fraud. This group includes notable people and is providing some of the evidence everyone has been requesting related to lawsuits the Trump team has/will be filing, including numerous instances of absentee ballots not requested and absentee ballots not recorded after return, plus affidavits from defrauded voters. The group is also reporting numerous absentee ballots requested through illegal post office box and commercial addresses and instances of voting in two states. Braynard says in his report that it's informing the lawsuits that are being filed this week, and the scope of the investigation is something of a landmark, regardless of the lawsuits' success. (See video report and upcoming white paper.) Information on the organization, its operation and its goals is from several highly reliable mainstream sources. Pkeets (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't publish Wikipedia articles about things we think may become notable, and the coverage in RS is far insufficient at the current moment. As for the comment that Trump's claims are not baseless if there actually is fraud, my claims that there are little green men piloting a very convincing Trump mech-suit are not baseless if that's actually the case, but we certainly don't write articles about it, even if I promise to provide proof of the claim at some later date. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - at the moment the sourcing is inadequate for this group. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In nominating articles for deletion, WP:NPOV guidelines should control. The political opinions and assertions of individual users is moot and irrelevant when it comes to determining whether an article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines or not. That said, it seems questionable to me whether this article currently meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NTEMP. aNubiSIII (T / C) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Discuss Could be incorporated into the 2020 Election article, doesn't seem to be important enough by itself. Would seem to be an organization looking for evidence of something that hasn't happened. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a non-notable front group for the Trump Campaign, what little information exists on it should probably be moved to List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump along with Stop the Steal. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no sign of actual notability; if there should be significant and sustained media coverage about this, an article can be created in six months or a year or whenever, but at the moment WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, and WP:NOTNEWS would also seem to apply. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. We don't need an article on all of Trump's lies. Reywas92Talk 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (as a second choice) very selectively merge/redirect to List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump. I don't see the sourcing as significant and in-depth coverage, particularly for an independent article; the various falsehoods and conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and allies can be covered elsewhere. Neutralitytalk 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason for this page to be deleted. I have not found any wrong or erroneous information. Why is this page up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenola (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Stevenola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @Stevenola: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and article subjects must be sufficiently notable for an article to exist. Feel free to peruse the comments above for various concerns editors have with this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so everyone knows, the article has been edited since this discussion began, with content including the summary of findings and links to other articles deleted. Plus, comments above are clearly biased. That really doesn't matter, though, because the findings have already been released. Suppressing them on Wikipedia won't erase them. Pkeets (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pkeets: While I agree that unfortunately some users do sometimes fail to adhere to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and make inappropriate comments (including here in this AfD), Wikipedia has guidelines that must be followed when it comes to notability. It’s nothing against you or any particular group. AfD consensus, once reached, is usually fairly accurate. While current consensus may be that this article is not ripe for including on Wikipedia now, keep in mind that doesn’t mean circumstances couldn’t dictate otherwise in the future. At this point, though, more seems to be required. aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the sourcing available, appears to fail WP:NORG. I agree with the recentism concerns as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for basically all the mentioned reasons. Cpotisch (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Merge per Fences and windows because I don't think we should ignore it completely, and we should at least provide our readers with sound, factual information. 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC) - it is a highly notable organization, despite it creating a stir. It has received a great deal of recognition (6,920,000 Google results) because of its significance to American voters and their overall trust in democracy. The cited sources include the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, ABC and MIT for starters. As a WP:NPP reviewer, I would easily pass this article. Following is an excerpt from a WaPo article about the federal government’s chief information security officer: Camilo Sandoval said in an interview that he has taken a break from his government duties to work for the Voter Integrity Fund, a newly formed Virginia-based group that is analyzing ballot data and cold-calling voters in an attempt to substantiate the president’s outlandish claims about illicit voting. Perhaps those sources weren't cited when PhilKnight, GW and some of the other iVotes were cast, but it is clearly worthy of inclusion. I'm not saying it is well-written, but that's not a reason to delete. Most new articles at AfD don't get this much attention, which speaks somewhat to the organization's perceived importance on one side vs its notoriety on the other. Bottomline, we don't delete articles that lack sources (and this one clearly does not), we simply tag them. WP:Crystal is irrelevant because the organization does exist, it is notable and operational per numerous reliable sources, and the current investigation was simply the catalyst for its creation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that a good number of the sources in this article (including some of those you name: the ABC, New York Times, and MIT sources) are being used to verify separate statements about a lack of evidence for widespread voting fraud, and do not even mention the Voter Integrity Fund.
    As for Google hits, see WP:GHITS. Conspiracy theories about widespread voting fraud have certainly been a hot topic on the internet for the past few weeks (largely on social media and in various other unreliable sources), so it's unsurprising there might be a large number of GHITS. However, the search term is also made up of very common words, and I think perhaps you're getting a lot of false positives. When you search for "voter integrity fund" (quotes included), there are fewer than 5,000 results, and they rapidly diminish in quality after the first three or so results (which are already the main sources in this article). GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, and appreciate your thoughts, but I'm a stickler when it comes to WP:PAG, and the 1st paragraph of WP:V points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. GNG tells us 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 article meets both V & GNG, hands down. We should not dismiss the fact that every conspiracy begins with a theory, and as difficult as it may be, editors should not take sides. We must consider the fact that while half of America dismisses it a conspiracy theory, the other half does not, and our job as editors is to sit dead center and keep our readers apprised of the facts. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme, rather than use this understanding (not "new" for you, because you have used it to defend other articles, content, and literally UNreliable sources that were favorable to Trump) of GNG for the then-new Steele dossier article, you tried, using several methods, to delete it (citing RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and a litany of other PAG), and have opposed/undermined its existence for years. I hope that this is an interpretation you will continue to follow the next time a new article unfavorable to Trump pops up. Hope springs eternal. -- Valjean (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, our job is to reflect the significant views published in reliable sources, not apply false balance to legitimize what have been pretty unanimously described in RS as conspiracy theories. As for GNG, I can see your side of the argument, though we disagree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NORG controls here, not GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - see WP:ORGCRITE - it clearly passes. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While it got a burst of coverage, many of the sources discuss the people involved in the organisation as opposed to the organisation itself. It also hasn't been in the news since its burst of coverage two weeks ago. There's plenty of reasons to delete this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud or Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. The organisation may be new, but it has received some coverage in reliable sources. However, the coverage is marginal - some of the sources don't actually mention the group (I removed one) and others are local. The article also excludes critical commentary, which while not a reason to delete when combined with the misuse of references suggest this article was written as advocacy, not with NPOV in mind. Fences&Windows 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Org itself fails notability, but some of the material may be usable forcitations in another article on the elections. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close

Discussion[edit]

  1. the article's creator [15], whose comments here and elsewhere indicate they are WP:NOTHERE, far more interested in using Wikipedia to promote the group's baseless legal filings and propaganda materials than in building an encyclopedia.
  2. A throwaway account created solely for commenting here Special:Contributions/Stevenola
This isn't an "uphill battle" situation, and I thereby move to close promptly. What little valid information exists in the article (certainly not just breathless linkings to the groups' own propaganda youtube channel) can just as easily be replicated to an appropriate article on trump campaign conspiracy theories. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this sub-section is rather unhelpful and possibly pointy, attempted to short-circuit a discussion after only 3 days. There is a reason why these remain open, barring severe circumstances for 7 days, as 1 day after your post User Atsme provided a well-reasoned (even if I personally disagree) argument to keep. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 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 Wrong forum. Feel free to nominate at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wardaraza7/Sample page[edit]

User:Wardaraza7/Sample page (edit | [[Talk:User:Wardaraza7/Sample page|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is heavily promotional, and relies on primary sources only, specifically articles published on its own website. It's possible the original editor has a conflict of interest but it's not known at this time. Coryphantha Talk 04:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coryphantha Talk 04:14, 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) 07:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Package unit (finance)[edit]

Package unit (finance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD'd a few weeks ago with "Can't find any indication this is a notable term of art in UK finance (or in general really)" as my rationale. De-PROD'd by creator with no reasoning given, and there has been no improvement or sourcing added to the article. I still can't find any indication of this being so notable that it needs a standalone encyclopedia article - not even enough mentions in situ to transwiki it to wiktionary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nine years is long enough for anyone interested to demonstrate any indication of possible notability for this unsourced sub-stub. Nobody has, which says a lot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stub article with no supporting references. Support for delete unless references can be found to substantiate notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is an unsourced stub, and I could find no references to support notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:26, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goosefoot (Chicago restaurant)[edit]

Goosefoot (Chicago restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability in article. Some local coverage in Chicago. Does have one star in "MICHELIN Guide Chicago" and was rated 8th best Chicago restaurant in 2018 by chicagomag.com. I don't see enough for WP:GNG. MB 02:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MB 02:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MB 02:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some would argue the Michelin star makes this notable, albeit that it's not immediately obvious from the article (I've added it to the infobox). I think there are enough decent sources to support it passing WP:COMPANY. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep Could be notability there, but the article is too short to really judge. No interviews with the owners or mentions in magazines? Needs to really be enhanced as an article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arun (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soft-deleted already per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun (actor) but that would be like an expired PROD. Re-nominating for deletion again. The subject fails GNG and SNG both. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Zero refs and only minor acting credits means also fails WP:NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable actor failing GNG and NACTOR.Faizal batliwala (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article should also be salted. It was recreated right after it was deleted per earlier AfD, but that didn't had fine participation. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Significant changes were made on 20 November. I am asking editors who commented earlier to re-affirm or change their comments as necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the additions to the article were by a sock. I have removed 10 of the sources that make no mention of Arun, but that is probably not exhaustive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on what we have here and the prior discussion, Arun does not appear to pass WP:GNG nor have the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC. WP:NACTOR does not appear to be met either. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Tongaʻuiha[edit]

Moni Tongaʻuiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. including articles about him and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have to agree with Yosemiter that the sources establishing notability do not appear to exist (at least, not yet) Spiderone 11:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Similar to the other MLR articles, there isn't a single secondary independent reliable source anywhere near this article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nichaphat Chatchaipholrat[edit]

Nichaphat Chatchaipholrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence if she played a significant role in listed films except Hormones: The Series where I originally redirected which was removed. Fails WP:NACTOR and a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS 💬 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't read them since they are not in English can you please tell if any of them confirm she played a significant role in other films listed in the article? and is that source reliable? The first link by The Hamburger Magazine is an interview which would qualify as a primary source. Thank you, GSS 💬 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The TV (not film) appearances are trivially verifiable, since the productions themselves can be considered reliable for such matters. In any case, her main appearances in Thirteen Terrors, Lovey Dovey, Friendzone and Bangkok Buddies are also covered by these sources: [51][52][53][54] --Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pearwah, along with Paris Intarakomalyasut, sang "Rak Tid Siren" which was one of the "two biggest Thai songs" of 2019 1. She's also known in Malaysia 2 3 4 and in SEA especially with their rendition of "Rak Tid Siren" for the One Love Asia where she was one of the performing artists 5 6 Also part of the tv series The Stranded. 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperork (talk • contribs) 05:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperork: please add these information to the article. Thanks for your nice work. VocalIndia (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now. — Emperork (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many sources present about her. Hunter 00:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG and BASIC per the sources provided by Paul 012 and Emperork. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Already added the additional sources (as suggested by VocalIndia) and made a clean-up on the article. — Emperork (talk) 22:49, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Ali Najafi[edit]

Mohsin Ali Najafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of the importance and his website does not work to show the References 1 Reference used as several times Hoseina051311 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 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. Subsequent to nomination, sources have been found/added that demonstrate notability of the topic. (WP:HEY) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best PC Ecuador[edit]

Best PC Ecuador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, and so cannot verify whether the team satisfies the team notability guideline in cycling notability guidelines. Moved to draft space once as undersourced, and moved back to article space without a reference. PROD then removed without providing a reference. The team does not inherit notability from one member. Its notability must be verified with a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move back to draft at best. It exists, but there is no evidence of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: We have expanded and added a good amount of reliable sources, Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Look at the recent changes, several reliable and verifying sources have been added. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: - I have, they're listed in my reply, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Keep in current state, but with a nod to Robert McClenon, whose call on the original article and available English sources I would still support. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:50, 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 01:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary High School, Hanamkonda[edit]

Rosary High School, Hanamkonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The school was renamed "The Sharon School". Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. No sources in the article and BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  00:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Other than provoking a mild curiosity as to the reason/thinking behind the name change there is nothing notable here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom's reasoning is correct. This school is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned in the nomination, it's a non notable school. Eyebeller (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unsourced, and schools are not inherently notable. I won't go so far to say it's "non-notable," but as far as we can tell for now, we don't even get to WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_25&oldid=992397018"