Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 07	November 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Theatre (Silverton, Oregon)[edit]

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

Not notable business. Covid-19 has caused a lot of closures. The theater- 'Over the years, it developed a reputation as the place to see movies that weren’t available at the chain theaters, such as Oscar nominees and other acclaimed independent films.' Doesn't make it notable. Art movie theaters are not rare. There's one less than ten miles from my home that first opened for business in 1924[1]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: stub creator). WP:BEFORE, all I had to do was a Google search for find sufficient sourcing. Historic theater and part of the Silverton Commercial Historic District. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is a contributing property of that historic district. I thought I remember some guidance regarding contributing properties and whether that on its own is enough for an article (barring other GNG considerations), but can't find it at the moment. Chris857 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, didn't mean to suggest being a contributing property meant automatic notability, and I've clarified I meant GNG above. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and historic theatre. The fact that the nominator knows of another one is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a notable historic building, COVID seems to be a minor point in its history. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I squeaks past the GNG finish line. NPR [2] noticed them, I think there will probably be more // Timothy :: talk 05:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PF94[edit]

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

Not notable. Created by an editor that has a history of disruptive edits Robynthehode (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im really angry,I made that because i want to introduce everyone to the PF94 LeoKids123 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link us to some sources that demonstrate the importance of PF94? Spiderone 19:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is heavily irrelevant and archived but there I have no importance to deserve a wikipedia article. The kid (leokids) apparantly seems to have some sort of mental disorder (in the times i chatted with him, which was a bad idea) -Chazpelo (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsensical and not notable, easily meets CSD criteria. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete totally not notable and meets CSD criteria. The creator should try another Wiki or something. In the meantime, perhaps they get a friendly message on their talk page if they haven't already about why it's not OK to make these kinds of articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not even an assertion of notability let alone evidence of it (A7 speedy) Spiderone 07:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - I MADE THIS SO I CAN INTRODUCE EVERYONE TO PF94! LeoKids123 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is now an A7 CSD on this as well. Surely one of these procedures is redundant? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 10 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 no more outstanding delete votes, I am also convinced therefore withdraw nomination. (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marjon Lambriks[edit]

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

Article about a opera singer who has been active for a long time apparently she retired in 2009 and now has come out of retirement. I can only find what seem to be press releases about her return to singing. Admittedly i was using a translator to read the hits I did find. Nothing came up predating 2009, I even checked other language Wikipedias and all articles about her only contain the same external links which do not prove notability. I believe she fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't you at least wait until the article is no longer tagged "in use"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was 2 hours between the only edit and nomination. They author still has 7 days to prove notability and work on the article. The other articles this one was translated from are in no better place then this. The tag does not protect from scrutiny and I did try to see if I could find one reliable source to support anything. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the author? I believe in collaboration. Opera Nederland, Vienna State Opera, AllMusic, Traviata, book. Enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notify project opera, for an opera singer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kutsch/Riemens - bedtime for me, - I suggest you withdraw the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing enough here to reach the inclusion criteria, admittedly I can't verify anything about the two books you linked to. There is no requirements to notify projects especially since most are dead, you are free to notify them if you are so worried about it. I appreciate your suggestion however I will allow the consensus to form. Have a good night. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now decently sourced, thanks also to Ktin. Kindly withdraw the nomination. A singer who participated in a recording which has an article, imagine! - I didn't even know such a thing exists. I'll go out no, and hope not to have to do further notifications - wasting more people's time - when I return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or at least let it incubate while the article is in development. The citations found by Gerda Arendt are enough to convince me that she's notable. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Additional comment: A 255-page biography was written on her 40-year career. I've added a sentence about this to the article + citation. I'm pretty certain that qualifies as in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is the sources are extremely trivial and not reliable or in-depth. AllMusic doesn't even seem to have review's of her work. Whatever the case about incubating the article, the sources are what they are and in this case they are clearly lacking. There's zero point in doing this all over again in a few days with the only difference being that the sources provided Gerda Arendt are in the article. I'm fine changing my vote if multiple reviews of her work materialize or in-depth coverage in reliable sources can be found about her though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't vote, but stick to sources and arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. The point was that I change my "arguments" to keep. I'm just not that worried about specific wording at this point. Vote, argument, justification, whatever. It doesn't really matter what you call it in the discussion. As long as "it" (whatever that is) is reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adamant1: She is in Großes Sängerlexikon (Biographical Dictionary of Singers) which means she clearly passes WP:BIO. That, combined with the 255-page biographic book writen on her constitutes indepth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think her being in a dictionary automatically makes her pass WP:BIO. Least of which because the depth of coverage in the dictionary matters, but also for other reasons. I'm fine with saying the book helps, but there needs to be something else in-depth along with it. Since there's "lots of older material online" I'm sure more can be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, thanks for your note, and sorry for my typo, I meant to link to WP:ANYBIO, she meets criteria #3. One does not have to meet all three criteria. In the AfD's on visual artists (that I often participate in) if an artist is included in a Dictionary of Artists, National Dictionary of Artists, Oxford Dictionary of Artists, Benezit Dictionary of Artists, or the like, they pass. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens. I don't really participate in that many AfDs about visual artists myself. So, I'll have to take your word on it. That said, I think the sourcing is almost if not there for her to be notable anyway. Otherwise, it's just kind of nitpicking. So, I struck my vote out. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Großes Sängerlexikon as ref. and also notice she was part of several performances directed by Herbert von Karajan. Amateurs weren't allowed to play with Karajan. Also, the article is not an orphan. LouisAlain (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC).
Keep there is lots of older material online especially if you dig into the newspaper archives (remember we are talking about the 70s and 80s before the invention of the internet). KittenKlub (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gerda and KittenKlub. Kablammo (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage in an encyclopedia and main-stream press and a monograph satisfy notability requirements. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:08, 10 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. Ultimately, only the creator advocates keeping the article, and the alternative to deletion, a merger, is contested with reasonable arguments. Sandstein 07:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brighteon[edit]

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

Non-notable fake news website. Really can't find any in-depth coverage of it at all. Main claim to fame is apparently playing host to Plandemic; I considered redirecting there but it's not mentioned in that article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). It's not a news site, it's a video hosting site that bills itself as a YouTube alternative, which seems to meet WP:GNG. I've added a few more references; one got removed since I originally created the article for unknown reasons. To the extent that some of its user generated content might be "fake", well, that's the kind of useful information we should probably be documenting for our readers, in my humble opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7, I imagine that the articles from Reclaim the Net were removed because that website does not appear to be a reliable source. The remaining articles do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to feel the same way, but I've never seen Reclaim The Net post anything that turned out not to be true; their writers and editor(s), though clearly quite private individuals, seem to provide a fairly good clearing house of reliable information about internet censorship. In anycase, that's why Vox magazine and the Poynter Institute are there too. Belt and suspenders. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to Natural News, where it probably merits a brief mention explaining what it is and that it exists. I'm yet to find significant coverage of this site apart from Natural News/Adams, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes much sense to merge a video hosting site into a conspiracy news website simply because they share an owner. If I were going to merge it anywhere, I'd probably just put it on a list of YouTube alternatives in Censorship by YouTube, alongside mentions of BitChute and perhaps others, as Google's censorship is the proximate cause of the sites notability, and would be useful information for readers there. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites Merge Ivote. No WP:SIGCOV for mike's YT alternative. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roxy. The title would be better as a redirect to Brighton as a mis-spelling. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article citing sources. PumpkinEditore (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:PRECOCIOUS editor, who makes a completely unconvincing argument, has been on Wikipedia for less than one day and has already executed a controversial WP:NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tutar Sagdiyev. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist is the charm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 8 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 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ssenyonyi[edit]

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

BLP of an unelected political candidate, does not pass WP:NPOL. Other activities do not make him notable either. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete party "spokespersons" are not inherently notable. You generally have to be the head of a truly powerful party or elected to office, neither of which Ssenyonyi has yet been.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and WP:MILL and WP:TNT. He clearly fails our standards for politicians because he's never been elected. Spokespersons are run of the mill; they come and go. The article would require significant editing to bring it up to a stub. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The argument for deletion is that this is a routine event (for this part of the world) with routine coverage. Accordingly, the "keep" opinions would need to argue that there are aspects of this events that make it more important and more likely to attract lasting coverage than other such events. Only the first two "keep" opinion makes such an argument, while the others don't address the argument for deletion. Still, this doesn't quite get us over the bar of rough consensus to delete, given that the "delete" opinions are also somewhat cursory. Sandstein 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Sa'ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash[edit]

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

Tragic, but all the normal coverage you'd expect of such an incident. No long-lasting impact. As per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this killing notable is that Amnesty investigated it and concluded that it was an extrajudicial killing. Patrick Leahy and ten other US lawmakers penned a letter asking it to investigate this killing and a handful of other killings. There was also some controversy as a video clip of al-Atrash body spread on social media, showing Israeli soldiers standing over him without providing medical aid.

It may also be instructive to consult prior AfD discussions about attacks and killings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

So it seems to me that there is a strong precedent to keep articles about this kind of violence. In this case, there are circumstances that makes the killing both notable and controversial. ImTheIP (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine knife attack in which the attacker was killed, no real continuing coverage. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the contrary, the references cited by ImTheIP, particularly the United States congressional inquiry, demonstrate that it clearly falls outside of "normal" criminal activity. The sources in the article demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Qualifies under both GNG and NCRIME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn't meet WP:DIVERSE so fails WP:NOTNEWS other articles AFDs that were presented by ImTheIP had large intentional coverage. --Shrike (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has twelve sources, so it indeed meets WP:DIVERSE. One of which is Amnesty. ImTheIP (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In those AFDs you brought there are reporting from WASHPO,NYTIMES and BBC. The partisan report from anti-Israeli organization don't count as reporting and there is a big question if it WP:DUE to include Shrike (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a filmed [BBC interview] with Sa'ad al-Atrash's mother, thus proving that a diversity of sources exist. I don't think that will change your mind, but I hope the closing admin takes that fact into consideration (along with your prior voting record, evidenced by the articles I linked to). ImTheIP (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This better but still not enough in my view I would prefer more sources from international WP:NEWSORG also it doesn't tell anything about the incident but rather gives first eye account which is more primary source --Shrike (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera, BTselem, AFP. ImTheIP (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Got a little bit of new around the event and burial. Also was included, with other events, in Amnesty report. NOTNEWS, does not have SIGCOV. 11Fox11 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From Amnesty's reporting: In an especially egregious case, Israeli forces shot dead 19-year-old Sa’ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash in the Old City of Hebron as he attempted to retrieve an ID card at an Israeli soldier’s request on 26 October. The Israeli police labelled the incident an “attempted stabbing” but an eyewitness watching the events unfold from her balcony said he had posed no threat when he was shot. One of the soldiers had asked him for ID, and as he reached into his pocket to grab his card another soldier standing behind him shot him on his right side, she told Amnesty International. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a memorial, speaks to the illegal Israeli practice of extrajudicial execution, this being one of the more shameful examples of that. This case and others are part of a pattern that has attracted the attention of the UN, Amnesty, Israeli NGOs and even the usually forgiving United States.Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair al-Atrash likely was attempting to carry out an attack. A fact that, initially, was missed by Amnesty's investigation which contributed to the controversy. ImTheIP (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This is really a case of WP:RECENTISM and, although IP had done a good job of making the case, an investigation by Amnesty International does change this analysis. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The long list of similar discussions set out by IP above illustrate clearly that the notability of this article is equivalent to dozens of others across the encyclopaedia, on both sides of this depressing conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 14 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 NMB48. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Jonishi[edit]

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

A minor band member of NMB48's Team BII and zero individual work outside of Team BII, simply being a member of the group does not warrant notability. Also does not meet GNG, BASIC or MUSICBIO. BEFORE showing nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly an in-depth, they're mentions within articles about other subjects. Guidelines and sourcing requirements should be strictly followed for BLPs. VocalIndia (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NMB48. The nominator is correct that the singer has done little if anything outside the group. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 15:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is going to release a photobook soon. If it charts on Oricon, she will be notable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOSOON. VocalIndia (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still might be better to wait a month and see.
    By the way, she may well be notable already, a Google News search returns 51,200 results: [3]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article also need rewrite because the current version was created with machine translation! When her photobook is on charts, you should create better version. Thanks. VocalIndia (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for thanking me, but I don't think I will create this article if it is deleted or redirected. Maybe a better option would be to ping the author (咽頭べさ) and tell him that the article can be recreated if Rei's photobook charts, but that he shouldn't create articles by machine translation cause machine translations from Japanese are usually just awful. (Yes, I've looked at the article and it is indeed a machine translation or even worse.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        He didn't seem to understand anything about English. VocalIndia (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 8 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 clear that the topic does not deserve a standalone article, and it doesn't appear like there is any content worth merging. The title seems too generic to make a good redirect, but if anyone wants to contest this point, I can restore and relist it at RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Mechanical Engineering Students[edit]

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

Non-notable student organisation. Redirect to Kathmandu University may be warranted at best. Tried that, didn't stick. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu University and Association of Mechanical Engineering Students are two organizations with very different objectives and works. So, it is very inappropriate to merge/redirect one from the other. Filipinohey User talk:Filipinohey 9:41, 31 October 2020 UTC) To remove the above confusion the Educational institutions in Kathmandu category has also been removed. Since this is not an educational institution, it can be removed from list of Education-related deletion discussions and list of Schools-related deletion discussions Filipinohey User talk:Filipinohey 9:41, 31 October 2020 UTC) New credible sources from News articles and book sources have been added to improve the references. Filipinohey User talk:Filipinohey 9:41, 31 October 2020 UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT WP:GNG Does not have WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 12:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources about this are either trivial, primary, or both. Therefore this fails WP:GNG. I'm tempted to suggest a merge or redirect to the universities article, but it's to general of a term IMO and both articles are extremely badly sourced anyway. So, a merge or redirect really wouldn't be worth it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kathmandu University with a though copy edit. The association seems like a student club inside the university. Whatever coverage it is getting in media is through the parent university. nirmal (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nirmal. I agree with the assessment of it seeming like a student club and it will definitely add to the Kathmandu University article. Hmanburg (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I considered merge, but didn't think the material would be an improvement on a target article because of sourcing. When considering redirect, I think the name is far too general for a redirect to a specific institution. // Timothy :: talk 08:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Kavi Nanthan[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online in reliable sources in English or Tamil. Directed one low-notability film, which also has no significant coverage in RS online. An online search for him turns up only blogs and social media. Captain Calm (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because directors are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 13 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 [transition of Joe Biden]. It can be undone when its time for this. Until then lets keep content in one place Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political appointments by Joe Biden[edit]

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

Too soon. Biden doesn't take over for 2 months. This article will be empty until then. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not official policy. Political appointments – broadly construed – will begin with members of the Biden Transition team, including a Coronavirus transition team task force that was just announced. Nominating this page for deletion after it has existed for under 24 hours, without allowing any significant expansion to take place, is unproductive. KidAd talk 22:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply too soon for an article. Anything useful can be merged to Presidential transition of Joe Biden for now, and this can stay as a draft. However, he will not be appointing any ambassadors for another 2 months, therefore this article is not going to contain any meaningful content that cannot be included in the transition article until then. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is not policy. It is an essay. KidAd talk 23:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELREASON#6 is a policy, as is WP:NOTFUTURE. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but "political appointments" are already being made. As more individuals are added to the transition team, which already includes a newly-established COVID task force, the page will grow. I can only work so fast. Additionally, WP:NOTFUTURE clearly states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. KidAd talk 23:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly consider the transition team "political appointments", but I suppose that's debatable. What individual appointment are you saying is almost certain to take place? TompaDompa (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What individual appointment are you saying is almost certain to take place? Every appointment the president makes, from Attorney General to Administrator of the FAA to White House Press Secretary to Director of the National Economic Council. These are political appointments that are certain to happen when the president-elect becomes president. This satisfies the WP:NOTFUTURE requirement (Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place). KidAd talk 00:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think it satisfies that requirement without us knowing who will be appointed. The position is only half of the puzzle, the person is the other (absolutely necessary) half. TompaDompa (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFUTURE states that events that are certain to take place are notable. Your preference that specific individuals be named is not included in that policy. KidAd talk 00:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is no appointment without a person being appointed. The event includes both the person and the position. Person X being appointed to position A is not the same event as person Y being appointed to position A nor person X being appointed to position B. Likewise, the inauguration of Joe Biden is not the same event as the second inauguration of Donald Trump. TompaDompa (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Moving the goalposts. The appointments are certain. That is all WP:NOTFUTURE (which you cited) requires. KidAd talk 01:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appointments are only certain if you think that appointing different people to the same position counts as the same appointment, hence my analogy with the January 20, 2021 inauguration. TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly weak keep it's too soon now, but likely that there will be talk by the time the AFD period closes. List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden (which has a PROD) is the clearer TOOSOON in my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is no consensus to keep, Redirect to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. KidAd talk 05:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Best solution for the "too soon" concerns. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is too soon for this article. We should not have unused filler articles just because of ancicipated changes in the future, we should only have articles that currently have content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, WP:TOOSOON is not official policy. "Political appointments" are already being made, and the page will continue to expand. KidAd talk 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't even mention WP:TOOSOON. The article clearly states "In addition to members of his cabinet, this list will also include individuals nominated who do not serve as cabinet officials but still must be confirmed by the United States Senate" implying that having to be confirmed by the Senate is the guideline to counting for this list, but the Senate isn't going to start confirming until he's actually the president. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He mentioned too soon with the words It is too soon for this article. In my opinion, it was too soon to nominate this page for deletion. KidAd talk 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and let it incubate. It's an almost certain event and just a matter of time. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appointments and announcements of appointments will be made/speculation of appointees already have significant media coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPECULATION policy, WP:NOTNEWS policy. KidAd is a primary proponent of these listicles, across multiple XfD. None of these are political appointments, as the transition is not part of the administration, and these are volunteers. Besides, this will never be a well populated article, as there are 9,000 of these jobs, and almost none of them will be WP:NOTABLE.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing in this is speculative, nor is it mere fleeting news, rather a sequel to Political appointments by Donald Trump (though that needs some work as it only lists those incumbent at the end of the term). While it's unclear if it should be listing every member of volunteer boards as political appointments, it's obvious this will have more legitimate information very soon. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any notion that this page is "speculation" is moot. Biden has named his Chief of Staff. KidAd talk 01:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. He will have a chief of staff on Jan 20th. Until then, speculation. All the rest currently on this page are volunteers, not political appointments. Most will always be volunteers, not political appointees. These are technical terms, enshrined in law. Proof by assertion will not make it otherwise.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. — Emperork (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As this entire AfD revolves around whether the article is too soon or not, so I checked - the Trump page was created on 26 November 2016. I don't think either of them needed to be created until the term starts, but I can't in good conscience say there's a WP:CRYSTAL failure. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man, there are so many different types of !votes here, with everybody having a different idea on how to handle the article. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or is everyone trying to delete Biden-related presidency articles created by KidAd? cookie monster (2020) 755 19:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take it personally, especially because arguments for deletion have been generally flimsy and efforts have not been very successful thus far. KidAd talk 19:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify When Biden begins to name Cabinet appointees, this can be moved to article space, for now, it's not very helpful. It's also poorly formatted (The COVID-19 task force is listed twice). I will copy-paste this page to my sandbox if there are no objections, so that we don't have to start completely from scratch if it's deleted instead of draftified. --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created separately, but seems questionable: ambassadors aren't cabinet members. Sandstein 20:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden[edit]

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

Too soon. Biden doesn't take over for 2 months. This article will be empty until then. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Seemingly a part of a swift nomination of multiple articles without enough time for expansion. The nominator couldn't even take the time to cite policy. KidAd talk 22:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply too soon for an article. Anything useful can be merged to Presidential transition of Joe Biden for now, and this can stay as a draft. However, he will not be appointing any ambassadors for another 2 months, therefore this article is not going to contain any meaningful content until then. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the copycat nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden, WP:TOOSOON is not a Wikipedia guideline. It is an essay. KidAd talk 23:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELREASON#6 is a policy, as is WP:NOTFUTURE. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:DELREASON#6, this article can be attributed to reliable sources. You obviously did not read WP:NOTFUTURE carefully enough, because it clearly states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. KidAd talk 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would you attribute something that has not yet happened to WP:RELIABLE sources? And what individual appointment are you saying is almost certain to take place? TompaDompa (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, this page is in the process of expansion and will continue to grow as time passes. This is the reason why a swift nomination after less than 24 hours is unwise and unproductive. Based on my most recent edit to the page here, multiple reliable sources have begun speculation about a Biden foreign policy agenda and possible diplomatic appointments. This is not my own speculation, but the coverage being produced by reliable sources. KidAd talk 00:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swift creation when all there is to report is speculation is not terribly productive either. List of people speculated to be appointed United States Ambassadors by Joe Biden (or Speculation about who will be appointed United States Ambassadors by Joe Biden, if you prefer) is not exactly prime Wikipedia content. It has news value, sure, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. TompaDompa (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFUTURE, events that are certain to take place are notable. You are right that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is also not a paper encyclopedia and running out of space. KidAd talk 01:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFUTURE doesn't say that events that are certain to take place are notable. It says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Being notable and almost certain to take place are necessary conditions for inclusion, but the text of WP:NOTFUTURE does not say that they are sufficient (that's an "only if", not an "if and only if"). It is of course perfectly possible for future events to be almost certain to take place without being notable (like the sunrise the day after tomorrow, for instance). TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to debate the limits of policy with you, but not when you make it up. KidAd talk 01:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should only have articles that have actual content, we should not create place filler articles. Down that path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is no consensus to keep Redirect to Cabinet of Joe Biden and allow me to expand the Draft. KidAd talk 18:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – too soon for this article. Redirect to Cabinet of Joe Biden. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad, the Corny 2[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest notability, fails WP:GNG / WP:NFILM; earlier PROD removed by the creating editor, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable film. The citations are just 2x IMDb links, 1x SourehCinema Movie Database, and 1x iFilm (TV channel) link. None of those citations passes Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Wario-Man (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some of the keep !votes are 'keep for now', others are unequivocally 'keep'. Regardless, there is a clear consensus against deletion and for keeping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of news. Not to mention it has no sources, and I believe it belongs in draft or needs to be deleted. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 21:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief. This may become a sentence in one of our labyrinth of Trump articles, but if we had standalones for every minor gaffe of that campaign, the category would start throwing LUA errors. Okay, that took off more than expected. There's a number of solid articles out that treat this thing as a kind of book-end to the entire campaign (e.g. [4]), which I guess satisfies WP:LASTING. Let's keep it then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article. I think it has a similar level of fame as St. John's Church photo op --User101010 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of 254 instances of substantial coverage seems to belie that statement... indeed you apparently couldn't be troubled to include even a single one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NOTNEWS. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep given the ongoing media coverage and the likelihood of the event having enduring cultural significance. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS, less notable than the church photo op. Unless there is a suitable redirect target, but I don't know what. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS @User101010: this event is nothing like Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church aside from the fact that Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too hasty, I still think it contains WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but it clearly does meet GNG. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs extensive improvement but I think there should be an article about this event which has been much discusssed in the news media - there are articles about it in the Independent, Guardian, Vox, The Atlantic, Huff Post, Metro and New York Times, not to mention smaller local papers {Google News results}. It's notable that it was the event / place where someone (Giuliani) was trying to give a press conference about the Trump campaign's next move but instead learned of Biden's win (and was rather dismissive of that news). It seems almost plausible (though, granted - hearsay) that the location was actually intended given that previous press conferences that week were signal jammed by Biden supporters shouting 'Count Every Vote' and a DJ playing music to drown out one of the speakers. Apparently a quieter location was planned to avoid that, though I still struggle to believe they intentionally chose this location. The confusion is said to have arisen after Trump, who was given correct info about the location by phone, misheard and (understandably, given his hotel business) related to his Twitter followers that it was being held in the 'Four Seasons'.

"Earlier in the week, Bondi and Lewandowski attempted to hold a press conference in the city following a court decision that allowed poll watchers to stand just 6 feet from workers counting ballots, rather than 20 feet. They tried to spin the ruling as a win; however, a DJ nearby blasted Beyoncé music and completely drowned out their remarks."^[1]

"In reality, the mistake was not in the booking, but in a garbled game of telephone. Mr. Giuliani and the Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski told the president on Saturday morning their intended location for the news conference and he misunderstood, assuming it was an upscale hotel, according to multiple people familiar with the matter."^[2]

Comedy ensued. JoBrodie (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Trump legal team's failed Four Seasons press conference, explained". Vox. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
^ "Which Four Seasons? Oh, not that one". The New York Times. 28 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.

Delete per NOTNEWS | MK17b | (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not only completely unsourced, but implies that Rudy Giuliani booked the location by mistake; the sources cited by JoBrodie indicate that Giuliani intentionally held the conference at the landscaping business since it was in one of the more Trump-friendly locations in Philadelphia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would it be better or worse to create an article about the company instead of the press conference? Not sure which one is better or worse.--User101010 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the event is IMO notable but the company is not, independently of the event. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! User101010 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section on the 2020 United States presidential election page. KidAd talk 02:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source adequately. The question for anyone !voting here on notability grounds is not whether the article is unsourced as it presently stands. It is, if reliable independent sources are added, is it notable? The Washington Post has written a whole article about this. So has The New York Times. If something in American national politics is covered so extensively, so non-trivially, by those two news organizations and yet remains non-notable, then every word of our notability policies is nullified. (Oh, it wasn't just American media. I haven't found any foreign-language coverage yet, but I bet it will be there since there were foreign journalists present).
In these delete !votes, I read the subtext of "OK, it's notable, but it shouldn't be". Too bad. We do not allow ourselves to decide that—if we did, we wouldn't have the Streisand effect article when we did. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But this seems to be recentism -- something that some editors believe deserves an encyclopedia article because it was covered in several newspapers in the last 24 hours. I'm sure we could find some minor events that were the subject of articles in multiple major newspapers during, say, the Warren Harding administration, but Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today. At best, this conference seems to be an aspect of Donald Trump's overall effort to contest the election results, although I can't find a separate Wikipedia article about that yet; if there is one, this press conference could get a sentence or two there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today." Which does not mean they aren't still notable now (cf. Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House) Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the comparison helps us to conclude anything either way about this press conference. All the citations in Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House published at least 70 years after the dinner, including a book about the dinner published 112 years later. We can speculate as to what events of the Trump administration historians will be most interested in many years from now, but that doesn't mean that we need to put all of them into the encyclopedia now. To take another perspective, we have broken up the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency into at least 17 articles, with one more to come for early 2021, whereas we only have 14 events listed in the single article Timeline of the Herbert Hoover presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper historical research could probably extend the latter to almost the same amount. "Recentism" can also mean a bias in favor of more recent events where we can easily find sources through keyboard taps rather than odysseys through large college libraries and archives. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has now been significantly improved and is not comparable to the stub it was yesterday. --Fippe (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Fippe's observation, with perhaps a mind to come back in a month or two and evaluate whether it holds up as a notable event with more distance BlackholeWA (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although as I wouldn't be averse to it being condensed into a larger page on the transition, especially if it proves to be a drawn out and unusual process Frobird (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The way it has been framed as the "last moment of Donald Trump's presidency" and the unusual choice of location/tweet mixups leading to a significant amount of attention are why I think it deserves to be singled out versus the many other press conferences or campaign events which were not as singularly important.Frobird (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD could serve as a case study in rushing to nominate an article for deletion before editors have had a chance to flesh it out and, in so doing, justify its existence. In this instance, the AfD was posted just 14 minutes after the article was created. It is an abuse of process and should be closed as Keep. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - revisit Hello again from the obviously biased creator of this article. I like the idea from BlackholeWA to keep it up for a month or two to give it a chance and then revisit. I really didn't think this article would get so much immediate attention with editing the article and with discussing deletion. I came to Wikipedia to read more about it and was surprised to not see an article on it. I'm not a regular editor, so I just created it with the intention of just getting it started as a stub and then making it better. Many thanks for everyone's ideas here. :-) User101010 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it is now completely meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The early delete !votes cast before sources were added to the article should carry little weight..-- P-K3 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's gained a surprising amount of coverage from many new outlets, including some from outside the US. Strong WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close and reconsider in one month. This article looks good now, but I feel it's really a case of WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. An individual press conference doesn't necessarily deserve an article, just because a lot of journalists laughed at it. And the business certainly isn't notable outside of this event. If a month from now, people are still talking about 'Four Seasons Total Landscaping', then keep it; but if it's passed from the media memory and just become one of many other strange events in 2020 that briefly attracted interest, it would be best being merged somewhere else or deleted. Robofish (talk)
Keep widely covered in the news as respresentative of a larger pattern of behaviour and a metaphor for the Trump campaign. John Cummings (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS means we don't write like a newspaper; not that we can't write about things that are in the news. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the substantial media coverage, I share the sentiment of Robofish above. All of the sources so far are news coverage, so WP:NOTNEWS persists as a concern (we often interpret coverage of a single event from multiple news outlets as only one source notability-wise). We don't yet know whether this event will have an enduring legacy or just become a single trivia line when the historical accounts of Trump's presidency are written, in which case it would fail the WP:PERSISTENCE section of the WP:NEVENTS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out in relation to the sources, there is one that is purely a transcript rather than news and another one is an obituary. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your point? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to WP:NOTNEWS, a significant portion of the article, particularly in the Event subheading, contains information that relates to and is based upon the transcript citation, as opposed to news sources. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we do not provide any unattributed interpretation or analysis of the transcript, just restating what it says, it can be used as a source.

As for the obit, I added it because there was a dispute as to whether the transcript or the Inquirer article gave the proper spelling of a name. The latter source mentioned the obituary, so I searched for it, and that settled the question.

Really, though, this has no bearing on this AfD. This discussion is properly held on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pawnkingthree. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by NedFausa, Fippe, Daniel Case, and John Cummings. -Mardus /talk 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per ditto. Haven't checked the edit history; it wouldn't surprise me if the initial article was barebones and delete-worthy. But it's been nicely sourced since then and has taken on added symbolic resonance in the media above and beyond the typical Trump news-of-the-weird story. (If the result is delete, it at the very least needs a subsection in the 2020 United States presidential election article.) --Jordan117 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already voted (keep) and am delighted that things are moving more in that direction. The story continues to delight, amuse and baffle me - here's a BBC reporter covering it [5] and Carly Aqulino's very funny TikTok in which she tries to talk about it but can't keep a straight face, haha [6]. JoBrodie (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While I find it all amusing, I still don't think the incident is notable. Do we have any other articles on press conferences? It probably deserves a mention on the presidential campaign article, but no more than a few sentences. I don't think this will be important in 5-10 years. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Richard Nixon's November 1962 press conference, where he famously said: "You don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." NedFausa (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another answer: I think it's that it's the whimper at the end of Trump's campaign. A tiny venue, not on the scale of previous press conferences, and journalists packing up while it's happening because the election result had been called, and in Biden's favour. The incident seems notable for that, not to mention that it has had fairly extensive coverage, and the fact that it's amusing is just a bonus.JoBrodie (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This article was nominated for deletion 14 minutes after it was created, it has grown considerably since that time, what are the rules in a deletion discussion when the article that is now being discussed is completely different to the article that was nominated? John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I don't think there are any; it is strictly up to the individual !voters to reconsider their earlier votes if they desire for the remainder of the week and leave things up to a closing admin. This sort of rescue is, after all, one of the possible outcomes contemplated by the process. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article may eventually be considered NOTNEWS (in a couple of years), for the moment it is current and relevant. I came here trying to understand someone's reference to "Four Seasons Total Landscaping", and this cleared it up perfectly; the article is properly fulfilling the purpose of any article on Wikipedia, to inform.184.0.143.99 (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this event seems to have taken on a reputation far more extensive than your regular "dumb thing that happened during the Trump administration", it seems to have acquired a somewhat symbolic value, which means I reckon it has a good chance of passing WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. If not, it can always be deleted later. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is a massive win in terms of fun in an otherwise sad and serious year (covid, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.). Agree, it can be deleted at some point (if necessary) to conform with WP rules, but for now, please consider retaining said article. Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with Elmidae's amusing remarks on not wanting to have an article for every gaffe, I think that this event stands out from the bulk of them. Not only because of the timing (the race being called during the conference), but also because of the significance of this 'ending' of the Trump administration (Re: "It began on a gold escalator. It may have ended at Four Seasons Total Landscaping"[7]). Whatever the case, interest and therefore references, now don't seem to be in short supply![8]
…it certainly drew attention. Two days on, the event at the Four Seasons continues to generate stories from Politico, USA Today, The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, the list is a long one. But credit where credit's due, The Philadelphia Inquirer has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this story, publishing a detailed accouunt of the whole thing.
— Ros Atkins, The Trump campaign 'Four Seasons' saga explained, BBC News
Aluxosm (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event meets the requirements for notability and is being discussed by a broad swath of reliable sources^[1] as an event of independent importance from typical campaign gaffes. Arguments per notability or not news requirements do not hold any merit. Reliable sources have clearly cemented this as both a notable and newsworthy event of cultural significance beyond the obvious political significance of it which has already been discussed ad nauseum above.

". . . [We are here] to see the newest Philly landmark," the 27-year-old said. Grobman, who had already purchased a Four Seasons T-shirt said the fact that the press conference ended up here of all places speaks to what she loves about her home city . . .^[2]

References

^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/four-seasons-total-landscaping-trump-gardening-merchandise
^ "From Obscure To Sold Out: The Story Of Four Seasons Total Landscaping In Just 4 Days". NPR. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020.

Saimouer (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Template: Rudy Giuliani and 2020 United States presidential election now link to this article --User101010 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is referenced in many articles and the subject of profiles in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the local Philadelphia paper. As the site of where many US and international media heard about the 2020 election being called for Biden it also features in many stories about the end of Trump's 2020 bid for the presidency. The site has itself become the subject of several works based upon it, notably a VRChat location and several Zoom Background templates. It is, at this point, likely to be an enduring location relevant to the election and Trump's presidency. I agree the article can be improved, as all articles can. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:RECENTISM is worth looking at here, with particular attention to the section "Recentism as a Positive." TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A normal press conference may not be worthy of its own article, but this one was not normal. It has been widely reported across the globe, and is clearly notable, primarily due to its unusual location. Bazonka (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine example of the Trump administration's absurdist incompetence, somewhere between a crematorium and sex shop, sums up the last 4 years. Acousmana (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - ongoing, widespread commentary exists for this incident, which in many ways the media has taken to be representative of the Trump 2020 campaign. Since it is likely that so will historians and Americans in years hence, recentism doesn't apply. I agree with JoBrodie, Daniel Case Fippe, Saimouer, Hoary, TheMusicExperimental, Bazonka, and Acousmana in particular. The consensus appears to be to keep. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient discussion in international media. Iconic event of the 2020 election. Moncrief (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are articles about it even here in the Czech Republic, eg. in the traditional newspaper Lidové noviny: [9]--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as emblematic of the behaviour and ideology of an administration during an election campaign, similar to Gould-Thatcher exchange in 1983. Not wanting to WP:CRYSTALBALL but this will live on in cultural memory for years.yorkshiresky (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We may not like it but the man isn't some random celebrity, he's the POTUS, most of the outrageous things he does ends up being notable, no matter how dumb. The coverage is there and its too much content to easily merge into any other article.★Trekker (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important to the 2020 US Election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.54.26 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly notable and of great relevance to the 2020 Election process. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. Herbfur (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all humorous angles aside, Politico reported today that the press conference resulted in many Trump lawyers declining to further represent him in his legal challenges to the election results. That is clearly a pretty big impact and makes this press conference even more notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure why this is a big discussion other than the fact the article is a bit low quality which means fix it not delete it, the facts are a) it’s a widely reported event b) it is linked to from a few articles now c) the argument that “basically no press conferences have Wikipedia articles” well that’s because the intention is to relay info to media that would then be attributed to the relevant articles but when the conference itself is an event then why not give it an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.49.31 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an event discussed worldwide and that had significant ramifications for the president, given that most of his lawyers resigned after this debacle. The article needs work but is fundamentally newsworthy. Hitherandthithering (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event covered worldwide. Most of Trump's lawyers resigned after this. Is likely to remain of interest in the future. Hun ter 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre (Russian band)[edit]

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

No claim to any notability, its just simple "garage" group. Fails WP:BAND, Possible PR/promo, created from single use account (possible sock puppet), also he created PR-page 8452, its proposed for deletion on 3 wikis. Кронас (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem to be a bit more than a garage band. I've found this article, but it doesn't, of course, demonstrate notability. Some niche coverage can be found too but nothing to suggest they meet WP:BAND. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's no evidence of anything that would pass WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, band fulfills three criteria:
criteria 1 WP:BAND – there are reviews in rockcor.ru, headbanger.ru, inrock.ru.

criteria 5 WP:BAND – released 2 albums at Metalism Records, which also released albums of following bands: Alkonost (band), Holy Dragons, Grand Courage, Arktida, Sunrise (Ukrainian band), Asguard (band) and other.

criteria 7 WP:BAND – most prominent of the local scene of a city (Saratov, population 840,000+).--Izobretatel (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To meet criterion No. 1 the sources need to be reliable beyond doubt. The three websites you listed (please provide links next time) do not appear to meet that threshold. For criterion No. 5, we need at least two albums with a major label. A list of them can be found here. Metalism Records is not one of them. For No. 7 they must be verifiably the biggest exponent of notable style in their city. Perhaps they are the biggest metal band from Saratov, perhaps not. The verifiably bit is what matters here. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:58, 14 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 1987–88 FC Basel season#Players. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schaub[edit]

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

Note: Also Fotios Karapetsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two players for FC Basel who both have less than 90 minutes of professional football under their belt. Consensus is that 1–2 games are not enough if the coverage of the player is merely statisticsl, per numerous AFDs here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom, fail GNG which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Alternatively redirect to 1987–88 FC Basel season#Players. Giant Snowman 22:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was thinking delete but after GS comments I feel there is actually some merit in the redirect. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Both of these articles are correct, do not deleat. Both players were professional at that time. All I am trying to do with my edits, is increase the coverage of Swiss football on Wiki. If the two correct articles are kept they could be improved by somebody who knows more information about the two players. If the two articles are deleated we will never find out. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Huligan0: Nothing wrong in your process or what you did, there is very little on the articles and the players. If you are able to find other information on them to improve the articles I could change my vote. You can always have them moved into your sandbox for now. You could always create a type of list article to show these players, I am sure there are a few more of them around to constitute a decent article. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Thanks for the positive imput :-) As suggested, I have copied both pages into my sandbox. But as far as I can see from the imputs to date, there is not going to be a decision, because there are not all that many inputs so far. Again, I just suggest that we keep the articles just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football, especially the history of FC Basel. As far as I am concerned, these two players have contributed to the history of the club. I wish everybody a very nice Sunday --Huligan0 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both per GiantSnowman and Govvy - no evidence that either player garnered significant coverage to pass WP:GNG during their extraordinarily brief careers Spiderone 07:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Kennedy Asmah[edit]

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

BLP of non notable local politician who was a constituency chairman and municipal assembly chief executive. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local level politiican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Municipal chief executive" is not an inherently notable political role — politicians at the local level may qualify for articles if they can be really well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for some substantive reason, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist. But nothing here is a strong claim to political significance — it's almost all career background résumé, with no content at all about anything significant he might have done in the job — and the sourcing isn't solid enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NPOL. He's the police chief of a mid-sized municipality, Tarkwa-Nsuaem Municipal District, which is itself a poorly-cited stub. I would not object to a partial merge (smerge). Bearian (talk) 17:42, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Sullivan (rugby union)[edit]

(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) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-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]

Oppose This is a very poor page, but it seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about him and not a brief mention. Other tags could be added. Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 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) 10:52, 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) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough substantial sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry but all I'm seeing is WP:MILL coverage; ping me if WP:SIGCOV is indeed found somewhere Spiderone 22:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Short[edit]

(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) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons mentioned above. Not at all notable. Hun ter 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Bursic[edit]

(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 and Chile are not a High Performance Union), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sullivan (rugby union)[edit]

(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) 20:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these sources are not the level of substantial coverage we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Falcon[edit]

(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) 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Street Fighter characters#Alex. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

Character seems to fail WP:GNG. The only references I can find are brief news article mentions of his appearance in Street Fighter V as well as list articles (trivial mentions). A large chunk of the article is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reception is limited to listicles that he was voted n-th something, which a recent RSN discussion are not reliable and not sufficient for establishing notability. As such, this fails WP:NFICTION. No objection to merging the reception content to the list of SF characters, which could benefit from this - but this is not enough to warrant a stand-alone entry. The rest of the article is usual WP:FANCRUFT (plot summary etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to point out that the "RSN discussion" you've linked is a discussion where two other editors, including yourself, gave your opinions suggesting a blanket ban on listicles, which do not necessarily reflect a community-wide consensus on the use of similar-styled sources in general and certainly not a guideline that other editors must follow. Plenty of reliable sources vetted under VG/RS publish "listicles" or "top character lists" which do provide meaningful, nuanced commentary. Haleth (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't change the fact that the discussion was held on a public forum and resulted in a clear consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that a mere two or three users form a clear consensus for the entire wiki project, which is what you are trying to say here. Going by your reasoning, 3 users including myself have expressed our concerns in a public forum about editors not expressing a nuanced view when treating all articles and sources, listicles or otherwise, on a case by case basis by judging the merits of the actual work's quality as opposed to their format. If anything, it should have been properly listed and canvassed as a Request for Comment or RfC by an admin or experienced editor, and the consensus closed as such. Haleth (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am of the opinion that listicles should not be blanket banned, as they can be useful information sources, but they should also not be upheld as evidence of notability if that is all that there is to a character's reception. That is because listicles often tend to list every single character of a game or series, which points more to the game/series's notability, not the character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of these reads like content from a fan wiki (see WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PLOT) and as mentioned above, has issues with WP:OR. I agree with Piotrus' idea of merging the reception content, that's the most solid section of the article and can be used at List of Street Fighter characters#Alex. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 09:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:OR concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reception section to the character's entry in the "List of Street Fighter characters" article, there's no reason why the character does not even warrant an entry there. Most of the cited sources, listicle or not, does not provide adequate meaningful commentary on the character to sustain a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the reception part to List of Street Fighter characters#Alex - not independently notable but we must consider alternatives to deletion Spiderone 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Street Fighter characters#Alex - There's really not a whole lot to merge here - most of the information in non-sourced or using primary sources, and those few secondary sources in the "Reception" section are, as pointed out above, nothing more than mentions in listicles rather than any actual meaningful commentary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piceli Rinakama[edit]

(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) 20:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Hun ter 18:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 8 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 Starship Troopers#Major themes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the WP:GNG and is really a non-notable content fork of the section written at Starship_Troopers#Major_themes. At best, the sources are focused on the politics of Starship Troopers, but do not mention the Terran Federation except in passing. If there aren't sufficient sources to support a spinout from the main article, the answer isn't to create a non-notable spinout, but to clean-up the section at the main article. There is nothing to talk about the overall Terran Federation "directly and in detail" to pass the WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, or WP:WAF. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancrufty article that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely mentioned in the FA-class Starship Troopers article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This really hinges on the 'analysis' section and whether it is sufficiently in-depth in sources that this could be kept. There is some discussion in [10], which has been cited in a number of other works (ex. [11]). In the present state, the article is poor and I don't see why this tiny section couldn't be merged to Starship_Troopers#Major_themes, as outside of the analysis section the rest of the article is the usual plot summary/fancruft/OR. That said, it possible this section could be expanded into a dedicated article. I think there is some discussion in [12] but I can't get proper preview of the relevant pages. But we also have to ask ourselves if the proper way to frame a potential spin-off article is indeed to focus is on the entity of "Terrna Federation", or on the themes of militarism, facism, etc. in the book. Right now I'd suggest merging the analysis section with the 'themes' section of the main ST article, but I am open to seeing if this couldn't be rewritten and rescued. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Topic lacks enough sores to stand alone. If the above aren't present in the parent article, might be worth trying to salvage a bit of the article to merge, but that should be decided by a discussion on the talk page of the main article due to its featured status. TTN (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a topic that lacks sources covering this in direct detail, as per WP:GNG. The main article already covers the political themes discussed here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers - As stated in the nom, this is little more than a poorly written content fork from that article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but I suggest to Starship_Troopers_(franchise) page instead of the novel FA article as I feel it may create undue issues. Haleth (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Stryffeler[edit]

(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) 19:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Peanuts[edit]

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. Whichever characters do meet the WP:GNG are already listed under the List of Peanuts characters article, and this WP:CONTENTFORK does not meet our encyclopedic standards. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator. The few characters that are worth mentioning can be mentioned within the main character list or the main article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a list says "minor characters", it probably isn't notable in modern-day Wikipedia. This article is no exception and fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of real world significance or notability Spiderone 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Little Red-Haired Girl is the only one of any real significance that I can see, and she's already listed in List of Peanuts characters#Unseen characters. Possibly merge Eudora? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really have a vote, but I would like to point out that "Minor character = Not notable" is a fallacy. There are a lot of minor characters that meet GNG, and there are a lot of major characters with little to no coverage. Be mindful of this when nominating "List of minor [X] characters" lists. Dark knight 2149 03:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I gave the caveat that some can be combined to the main page. For instance, Charlotte Braun only had a couple appearances but she has been widely documented. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the characters listed here are individually notable, with the exception of a couple that are already covered elsewhere (The Great Pumpkin, the Little Red-Haired Girl). There are no real sources that I can find that cover this grouping of minor and background characters, either, so it fails WP:LISTN. As none of the information here appears to be reliably sourced (its either primary sources or non-reliable sources like blogs), there is nothing that should be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a rule of thumb, any list of minor elements is a list of lowest denomination WP:TRIVIA and needs to go. This list is a good example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Content forking. Unnecessary fandom-like list/article. List of Peanuts characters could cover such content. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of aviation accidents and incidents in fiction[edit]

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

This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. The few sources are only discussing the concept in passing, or recapping WP:PLOT information, which is insufficient to meet WP:NOT. Maybe an article about the overall concept of fictional aircraft could be notable, but "list of incidents" is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE topic that fundamentally cannot meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is inaccurate, as there are secondary sources in the article on the general topic of fictional depictions of air crashes, e.g., James H. Farmer, Broken Wings: Hollywood's Air Crashes (1984). The nomination references "the overall concept of fictional aircraft", which is not at all what this article is about (the crashes are fictional, the aircraft are real), frankly suggesting a misreading of the intent here. BD2412 T 19:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as a trivial list. We don't have List of fictional car accidents or List of fictional falling down stairs incidents and this is equally indiscriminate. It's trivia and that is all, more fitting for a TVTropes list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an entire Category:Films about aviation accidents or incidents. We don't have a comparable Category:Films about falling down stairs incidents, nor do there appear to be any books or articles about how falling down stairs is depicted in fiction. BD2412 T 20:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A film being about an aviation accident is different than an incident in a work of fiction. One is defining, the other is trivia. It's the difference between, say, an entire book about a plane hijacking, or BioShock, where the plane crash happens in the first 5 minutes and plays a rather minor role in the story beyond establishing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's worth noting that Bioshock isn't included in this list. All of the listed items are fictional accounts where the incident itself is central to the work, and defines it. The film category alone is not broad enough because there are also television episodes and other media with a comparatively central depiction of a plane crash or the consequences of such an event. Perhaps the solution here is to rename the article to encompass the central role that air crashes can play in fiction, or to move this to Aviation accidents and incidents in fiction and make the list secondary to discussion of the genre. BD2412 T 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you wish to make that article feel free, but it would be a complete 100% rewrite and therefore has no bearing on this AfD. I don't think I'd vote to delete a well written article on the concept of aviation accidents in fiction, but that's not this article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate. We don't have List of bank robberies in fiction either, despite having a Category:Bank robbery in fiction, because it's just too commonplace a plot device. Per BD2412, a single article is fine, but not a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously deleted under the title List of fictional aviation accidents and incidents, but not quite similar enough for G4 to apply. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that such articles very rarely provide useful, encyclopedic, information about their content. When I saw this title I immediately thought of Lord of the Flies, but was shocked to find that one of the most notable works of fiction that used an aviation accident or incident as a major plot point didn't even get a mention in this article. The topic of this article is pretty clearly notable, but why is our coverage of such elements of fiction so poor? If it was half-way decent then we wouldn't get such deletion nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Phil Bridger: Ideally, editors expressing the concern you have raised would improve the articles in the directions proposed. BD2412 T 22:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I agree with you, and have said that this topic is pretty clearly notable, but we don't live in an ideal universe where everyone has infinite time to pursue all of their interests. I choose to spend the limited time that I give to Wikipedia on other topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Phil Bridger: I have added a paragraph on Lord of the Flies, with discussion of the implausibility of the plane crash described. BD2412 T 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see what makes this anything more than a collection of WP:TRIVIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NLIST and WP:NOT. Too broad and vague to be discriminate, and Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT supposed to be compilations of WP:PLOT details. No prejudice against creating a new article that focuses on this as a broad topic, instead of a list of unreferenced plots. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 12 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) 08:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort McKean[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this is a notable fort. Analysis of sources: a primary source military report, an obscure doctoral thesis from a minor college, an unpublished letter, a primary source letter, and Wisconsin in the War, which I tracked down and could only find passing mentions of this fort in. This is referring to a different for in North Dakota. This is referencing a site in Nebraska. This appears to be referring to Fort Plain, New York. Brief mention there. I'm just not seeing any way this passes WP:GNG, as everything's either passing mentions or in primary sources, except for an apparently unpublished letter and an obscure doctoral thesis. As the article says It is unknown what buildings or defenses were erected there. This seems to be a very obscure frontier fortification that didn't get any significant attention in secondary RS. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote the article on Fort McKean and since then I wrote a book entitled "Forts and Posts in Kansas During the Civil War: 1861-1865" in which I detailed many more references about Fort McKean. This fort was one of quite a few military posts along the Kansas-Missouri border that were established in response to guerrilla activity in the area. It seems I will need to add these references to the article. Since my book is also a published source, I will include it in the references. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (edit conflict) The difficulty with this AfD is that it's for a frontier civil war fort that is verified (my search brought up records that a Company C was stationed there, and that specific soldiers were stationed there) but that hasn't been mentioned much since, if ever. We have WP:V. We might have GNG based on the sources provided, and we might not. The fort was definitely noted even if not extensively in the mid-1860s and late 1870s and forgotten about, making it hard to apply traditional WP:GNG principles, which are usually based on what you can easily find on the internet. Additionally mentioned [13] My gut says we're a better encyclopaedia with the article, so weak keep per WP:IAR, but if there are good places to merge the content I'd be open to those. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of end up on keep myself. Seems to be a quality reference and stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable fort, and well-referenced too. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But weakly like SportingFlyer, and I don't disagree with the nominator. The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): 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. This fort has no such official status, although it does have some coverage in reliable sources. Would support merging into a list article on "Forts and Posts in Kansas", but there isn't one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 11 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) 08:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Mexico City Reforma[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable building. The nominator seems to have started a batch of deletion debates at once, I think they should all be reverted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link us to some sources that demonstrate notability? Spiderone 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I'm sure there are news articles covering its construction that could be found with a bit more digging. I can expand the article, but I don't like doing that while there's a deletion debate going on. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least 4 of the sources linked by Mike show WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 14:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. I note that at 24 stories, it's not automatically notable as a skyscraper as far as I'm concerned. There is coverage, although some of the sources are not the best. For the record, I don't think that Hilton hotels are automatically notable. The past record of similar hotels has been spotty; see "deletes" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilton_Hotema, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeddah_Hilton_Hotel, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilton_Liverpool_Hotel, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilton_Cairo_Heliopolis, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hilton_Hotels, with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glasgow_International_Hilton_Hotel as a "no consensus". However it has been the site of some major conferences, including a Wikimania, which is reason perhaps to keep. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 13 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aitutaki Lagoon Private Island Resort[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per consensus on AfD last month. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per unanimous consensus on AfD last month. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - way too soon for another AfD Spiderone 08:53, 9 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) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brookstreet Hotel[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Simply hosting the Bilderberg conference once is not enough. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
draftify instead of delete : Interested users may expand the article with reliabe sources in the draftspace. Its also important to note the age of the article in this case.Shahoodu (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable building in terms of WP:SIRS or in terms of heritage listings Spiderone 22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chedi Muscat[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim to notability and no material beyond the usual travel service info. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 9 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 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel and Casino, Port Vila[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-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]

Delete - not seeing any WP:SIRS for this one Spiderone 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Valley (Back to the Future)[edit]

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

Fictional location that lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by the WP:GNG. This is almost entirely unsourced or sourced to primary/promotional sources, including a DVD release, a board game, a licensed guide, and so on. There is one independent source that talks about the clock tower, but nothing sufficient to build out an entire article about the entire fictional town. A search reveals only passing mentions of this location, with no real world context to help this meet WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT, or WP:NOTABILITY. Jontesta (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. While the article in its current state needs some massive cleanup, the topic is notable. It's mentioned numerous times in The Worlds of Back to the Future: Critical Essays on the Films (2014), We Don't Need Roads: The Making of the Back to the Future Trilogy (2015), this article on Back to the Future locations, an article about a town that temporarily changed its name to Hill Valley, and more. I think there's a bit of a WP:BEFORE fail here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: I looked at this, including virtually leafing through some pages of the book on GBooks, and I am not convinced there is anything substantial here. The town is mentioned often enough, but I don't see any significant analysis. The second chapter of the book ([19]) does seem to have some promise, but the preview ends before I can make up my mind if the discussion the town is sufficient, or is it just an example of the fictional suburbia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above as per WP:GNG which will enable the article to be improved so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Timmccloud (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a Reception section with a critical reading from the book Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film, which specifically discusses the town for four pages (pp 35-38). The previously mentioned The Worlds of Back to the Future has an entire chapter about the town (pp 49-61). — Toughpigs (talk) 21:58, 11 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 08:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Rıza Babaoğlan[edit]

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

Looking at the sources, nothing is about him and are mostly non-reliable sources and some are dead links. He also wasn't in the List of recipients of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World as said by the article before I edited it, but rather was in the top in the Turkish leg, again reported in a non-reliable source. The global award is notable, the Turkish leg not. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree on all counts with nom. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who are wondering about the Turkish page. It has been nominated for deletion 4 times:

1. 7 September 2007, Delete

2. 21 April 2013, Keep

3. 26 April 2017, No consensus

4. 30 October 2020, Delete. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually this guy is self-promoting himself. We're also voting for deleting the page in Turkish Wikipedia Gundoganfa (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the Turkish leg? Gundoganfa (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a global one called Best of the world and then they also made a Best of country X. Might be poor choice of words from me. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:30, 9 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) 20:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Persibas Banyumas season[edit]

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

The third tier of Indonesian football does not meet the criteria for WP:NSEASONS and there is no evidence that this would be able to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangalia[edit]

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

No references found for this single line article, does not meet WP:GNG. Found this one link - [20], and I don't think it is WP:RS Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the cn and added 2 refs so the subject certainly exists and is covered in Indian history type websites, the article could surely use expansion by someone knowledgeable from the Indian articles task force to bring it up to at least start class. Also it seems a subsequently blocked sock removed a fair amount of content in April of this year so maybe something can be retreived by someone in the know. JW 1961 Talk 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As another editor has examined the deleted content mentioned above and found nothing of value, it would appear that deletion is now the most reasonable outcome. JW 1961 Talk 17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are WP:SPS websites and the historical disputes that caste articles attract means that we should demand high-quality reliable sources for such articles. This sub-stub has little to no value and a redirect to Rajput would only be viable if we had substantive sources to declare that the identification was correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn and nom. I concur that available sourcing appears to be almost entirely from self-published sources and not indicative of passing the general notability guideline; the significant coverage in reliable sources as is required by the guideline simply do not appear to be met at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the limited participation until after the second relist, giving this one more relist to ensure that there is a delete consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article are not WP:RS so they do not verify its notability. I looked at the material removed in April and did not find usable sources. Google produced one passing mention, and JSTOR and NYT did not produce sources. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gowri Nadella[edit]

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

Duplicate of AfC submission Draft:Gowri Nadella. The draft has been declined and rejected 9 times by AfC volunteers. The draft is also being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gowri Nadella. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD also concerns the following article ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion should also list Gowri Nadell, created identically by the same author. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete this article and Gowri Nadell and consider WP:SALT. Her only claim to notability is an interview in SEEMA magazine which is totally insufficient for WP:GNG Spiderone 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No notability. Considering this was rejected so many times, the process was circumvented, and double articles were posted, a salting is in order. —Kbabej (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is supported by credible sources. Feel that the author is inexperienced. Do not title blacklist as this is a notable figure, and the author was clearly inexperienced however we should not prevent future articles for this figure from being created—Rajsingh19 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt and consider title blacklisting, as per above, but this is a content forum, and also needs conduct dealt with. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There's an MfD for the draft here. The article and draft need to be deleted and salted. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 14:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses, I've already mentioned MfD link in my AfD nomination. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheAafi, ehh, I deserve a facepalm in my direction. Thanks for pointing it out, anyhow. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nadella is a notable figure. Do not title blacklist as the mistake should be the fault of the inexperienced author and the author should be prevented from editing on Wikipedia. However, we should not penalize the figure.—Elizabethyung (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this article, Gowri Nadella but delete the duplicate article, Gowri Nadell.—Alizagrace (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A sockpuppet investigation has been opened by me for users Rajsingh19, Elizabethyung, and Alizagracej here. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the results of the SPI I've struck the comments from the sockpuppets above. 192.76.8.72 (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —-Kbabej (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable minor that seems to have been created for promotional purposes. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL 192.76.8.72 (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt both articles as per above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt due to the extreme persistence and sock-puppetry of the article's supporters. No notability for this minor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baska[edit]

(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 joining sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 9 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franco van den Berg[edit]

(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) 17:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet GNG or NRU Spiderone 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Kapur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and mentioned beauty pageants are non-notable. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Rasileka[edit]

(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 and appearance for Fiji 7s weren't in notable tournaments), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Aguirre[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRU / WP:SIGCOV failure. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riekert Hattingh[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Duechle[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom, rugby players in the US are not automatically notable. There are several articles in Category:Seattle Seawolves players that should probably go too. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reywas92:, AfD's have been listed for certain Seattle Seawolves players and you should be able to see them on list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot to comment on...prod ought to work on these too, but put me down as delete all. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, there has been dispute previously over whether or not Major League Rugby is notable under WP:NRU (it was previously added with no discussion hence why lots of pages have been created/survived this long) so didn't want to PROD them for that reason. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This league does not give notability. I would suggest a mass deletion, but I have also seen those fail because of objections to one notable person admist a sea of non-notable people, so I understand why some go a different route. I do not think I have ever made a mass deletion nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment @Johnpacklambert:, not sure how I'd go about doing a mass deletion, and given the previous contentious nature I thought a large number of AfD's would have to suffice. I've managed to go through all the teams and players now though so there shouldn't be anymore to clog up the deletion sorting lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Krumrei[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Hayden (rugby union)[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV failure. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Shallman[edit]

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

Potentially notable but no real coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Trierweiler[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was keep. czar 04:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Girl (film)[edit]

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

Underground exploitation film. Rotten Tomatoes has found zero - 0 - professional reviews (and a measly 227 user scores.) Won an award at a festival for which there's no article. Most of the cast are unknowns. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Red-linked actor, film festival and director. Fangoria isn't a primary source. The article is mostly a rehashing of the plot. No notability established Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23, Oaktree b, and Shellwood: This has reviews from major outlets, specifically Dread Central and DVD Talk. This is enough on its own to establish notability, as both are considered to be reliable sources for reviews. There is also some other coverage in the article, which on its own wouldn't be enough to establish notability but when put with the reviews pushes this into a more solid keep on my end. I normally don't WP:TROUT people, but it looks like the DVD Talk review was in the article (albeit poorly added reference markup language wise) and the Dread Central review came up in the first page of Google results. With other outlets, Ginger Nuts of Horror is typically seen as a reliable source as it's been used as a source in academic/scholarly texts like this and has also been nominated for several Locus Awards, a fairly notable award. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing vote to keep based on ReaderofthePack's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reviews in reliable sources as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has premiered at film festivals, has non-trivial reviews, etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keni Nasoqeqe[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is this which I can't access in my country. I don't think it would be enough anyway from what I can see of the preview of the source Spiderone 09:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

The subject is the manager of a factory, and a Joint secretary to the Government of India which, as described in our article on the role, is the third highest non-political executive rank in the Indian Government - a high-ranking civil servant. I don't believe that WP:NPOLITICIAN applies to roles like that, so I assessed against WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is mostly affiliated primary sources - mentions in staff directories of organisations her works for. There is also a video on Facebook from an affiliated organisation (an Alumni relations group from his Alma mater), and a few news articles which mention him, but are not about him (events that he attended, that sort of thing). I can't find anything which provides the reliable, independent, secondary and in-depth coverage called for by GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for reviewing and pointing out the missing relevant information. I although tried to include all the government references provided, still if you say, I can provide some additional news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added further references from news articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the new news articles just provide more passing mentions about the subject - they are reporting about an event that he attended, and explain who he is, but there is no in-depth coverage about him. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nomination , WP:NPOL does not apply. and there is absolutely noting that can pass WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see it’s a biography about a government official , and perhaps the references indicated that the government websites mention him and his position is sourced well. As far as news articles are concerned, there are sources quoting him but not very well. Overall, as per the government citings, I guess it’s fair enough to keep it, with some improvements to it.Shresthsingh71 (talk) 20:19 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Shresthsingh71, is there a SNG that I have overlooked, giving presumed notability to unelected government officials? If not, we need to rely on WP:GNG, which would exclude using primary sources such as the listings at government directories - we need independent, secondary references giving the subject significant coverage. There is a good reason for this: presumably, there are hundreds of thousands of civil servants all over the world who are listed in their respective countries' government directories, but they aren't all notable and we don't want to host articles about all of them. If they themselves are notable, they will have been written about by secondary sources - that's the standard we use to judge whether or not to host the article. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I’ve added secondary reference from a news article. I totally understand the concerns raised and have added this to complete the shortcomings. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that ref you added is a one-sentence announcement saying that some Indian Ordnance Factory Service officers had been made Joint Secretaries. The subject's name appears in a list alongside those of 27 other people, which does not amount to any depth of coverage. Without even considering the reliability of any of the sources, there are still no independent, secondary sources giving this subject any depth of coverage - there is no evidence that GNG is met. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from experienced editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the individual doesn't satisfy WP:GNG; most of the references in the article are primary sources such as personnel listing on government websites which can't be used to determine notability. The references which are secondary and reliable only show passing mentions, a WP:BEFORE search also does not yield anything worthwhile either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete i couldnt find any in depth third party coverage, also per nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Rai[edit]

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

No in depth significant coverage. Notability can not be inherited. He doesn't have anything else apart from being CEO of a major corporation. He has given comments etc in many publications but it looks like a PR thing. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable CEO of a non-notable company Spiderone 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is ineligible for soft deletion, PROD was contested by ThaddeusB with the rationale "contest PROD - subject is likely notable (see http://searchindiannews.in/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Tarun%20Rai%22%20-kaga&gsc.sort= ) - at minimum a full discussion is warrented"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete i couldnt find any independent, in-depth coverage. Whatever I could find, looks like PR like the nominator says. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. CEO of two non-notable companies. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 13 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 08:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Barman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, sources are passing mentions and do not add up to passing the WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources demonstrate GNG compliance and WP:NPOLITICIAN does note give state-level party officials presumptive notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is not eligible for soft deletion because a PROD has been contested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one good source, WSJ, is not enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux Avedisian[edit]

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

notability not established, sources are not reputable, only reputable source is the single WSJ article, which is not enough to establish notability. The three sources mentioned by User:Kvng in their deprod are also not sufficient for establishing notability.
The forbes source is written by a contributor, not a staff writer; it is more like a blog that she's been paid to write, there is no editorial oversight. The article isn't even about Avedisian, it just quotes her.
Another link provided by Kvng is TheNextWeb. Note that TheNextWeb is a perennial source. This source is not in-depth either, stating things like "Avedisian has played a part making Bitcoin more accessible and mainstream." without detailing how, suggesting that simply because she was a comedian, she has done that. The section is all based on quotes by Avedisian, and TheNextWeb hasn't done any original research on Avedisian.
The last source provided by Kvng, siliconangle is from a site dedicated to covering emerging tech. Because it only covers "emerging" phenomenons, coverage there cannot be seen as establishing notability; the purpose of the site is to be too early. The article contains dubious quotes like "The founders of two biggest ICOs — Bancor and Tezos — are females." without explaining what constitutes an ICO, and where this information comes from.
The bar for crypto sources is higher, and all these sources are sub-par, I don't think they establish notability. Sites like these are covering a new person in the ecosystem every week. Wikipedia cannot contain articles about every single one of them.
Titles like "queen of Bitcoin" makes her sound important, but this is just clickbait. In technology, notability should not be automatically established because someone is female. Technology media has a tendency to prop up women in a male-dominated field as "the only one" (which is something "queen" implies). It is a gimmick of technology media, and as can be seen, not even the WSJ is sober enough to abstain from it. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree notability is marginal but the case is strong enough that I don't think using WP:PROD to delete this was appropriate. ~Kvng (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First WSJ source: this is good, it's a biographical profile in a high quality RS.
Other sources: Esquire is a single passing mention. IHB is a dead link. Lifeboat Foundation is a self-sourced fringe organisation. Academy of Art University School of Fashion is an internal passing mention in a list of names. DLD Conference is a dead link to a primary source video from a conference with no evidence of notability. Fox Video links are both dead links. Assemble is a dead link. Radio Free Brooklyn is a podcast link. Second WSJ link doesn't mention the subject at all. PE Hub links are dead links. Wired link doesn't mention the subject.

So we have an article that has one good source - and that every single other source on is bad or useless for a BLP. This is classic WP:REFBOMBing - the illusion of backing for an article.

Is a single biographical profile enough to swing an article? If so, most of the article would have to be deleted and it would need to be cut down to that sole source - this is a BLP. Leaning delete without more - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her. Search results return mostly articles where she's mentioned as the "Queen of Bitcoin". Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious self-serving promotionalism about a person "who has called herself the Queen of Bitcoin," DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
Keep Google and google news bring up many more sources, mostly industry and conference appearance. Someone with so many conference appearance is obviously a subject expert. As she has much peer reviewed sources, she qualifies. There is also Venture Capital Journal source, but you can only see it via Google Cache. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Update: 5 more industry sources added, mostly mentioning her conference appearances. This one is more in-depth article.Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Expertwikiguy: Why are you linking Venture Capital Journal? The cached article contains no information about Avedisian at all, it just drops her name and says she will be speaking. How is this relevant for the article? Why would such a name drop in a dead "journal" establish notability? The "article" claims that she is a managing partner at "BlockStream Ventures", but try googling that and you'll find nothing. Check out her LinkedIn and it is nowhere to be mentioned. The SiliconAngle article you're linking is the same one I linked in the nomination, I already explained how it is unreliable. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: there is also a video of her in Venture Capital Journal, but you have to sign up to see. In addition, she has 2 sources from Wall Street Journal. You cannot possibly say WSJ is not a credible source! I think there is enough coverage with 20 sources that even if a few are not reliable we are still good to meet notability. The notability guidelines say that a person needs to have significant coverage and this person does. In addition there are many peer reviewed websites which also establish notability in her own field as an expert. For some reason there are a lot of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency haters on Wikipedia as editors and admins. Yes there is a lot of scam in this field, but there are also a lot real legit companies and individuals. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is marginal but adequately established by two sources: WSJ and Silicon Angle. Article can be improved to remove any WP:PROMO isses; Deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: did you read my nomination? I tried to explain why I don't consider SiliconAngle citable. It admits to cover "emerging" stuff. How is emerging different than WP:TOOSOON? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ysangkok, yes and covering emergig stuff is not a valid disqualifier. If it were, no newspapers would be citable. WP:TOOSOON is not a valid reason to delete once there is coverage by reliable secondary sources. WSJ and SiliconAngle are secondary sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Not all media is focused on covering emerging tech by propping it up like SiliconAngle is. Here are a few of their headlines, I have highlighted their bias. They are most likely getting paid for putting up these pieces:

"Digging up dark data: What puts IBM at the forefront of insight economy | #IBMinsight" Obviously paid for by IBM. Even put the hashtag in the headline. Did you see other reputable media do that?
"A Name Change for Tivoli Proves New Focus on Smarter Infrastructure | #IBMEdge" Ditto.
Fancy Follows Fab’s Lead, Attracts More Celeb Support for New Age Retail. Note how it is not critical at all and even claims "The secret behind The Fancy’s success is its strong emphasis on user experience." Does it sound like independent reliable research? No.
Dassault’s modest proposal: Change the way we make everything. Another article without a single critical word.

--Ysangkok (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ysangkok, this is looking like a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion. SiliconAngle is not on WP:RSP. ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant deletion discussion is, however, a perfectly good place to discuss it. Not all sources have been through RSN, and not all bad sources are listed on RSP - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't have the wherewithal right now to independently research whether SiliconAngle is reliable. The demonstrated notability of this subject is marginal with or without it. ~Kvng (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the SiliconAngle source is not a generally reliable source. WSJ by itself is not enough to keep per GNG (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 13 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) 08:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Detré[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Much of the article seems to be a variation of WP:FANCRUFT (not surprisingly, the majority of the citations are from a fan website made by the subject's daughter; the article's creator also noted that the article was created in association with this daughter). Disregarding this, I can't find many sources to confirm this artist as notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist, who's life is hard to piece together from scant sources. If you can't find anything about him, he isn't notable. Did he appear in a salon or feature in any art galleries? If not, he's just an average person who liked to paint. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and it's kind of sad to vote this way. The artist has an entry in Benezit, and I've added two references from it. For a family memorial page, it is beautifully written and enjoyable to read. Much appears to be cobbled together from family histories and source material that doesn't fit our notion of reliable sources. Aside from sales/retrospectives in 1967 and 1969 that yielded thin catalogues, there is surprisingly little information on the artist, especially one who consorted with well-known figures. I checked newspapers.com, hathitrust.org, and archive.org in a search for print sources without success. If anyone has better luck I might change my vote. Curiocurio (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep based on the Benezit and Hungarian (Németh et al.) source. The Hôtel Drouot sales also provide a secondary measure of notability, in particular the 1967 retrospective catalogue. Curiocurio (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am currently researching this artist on Hungarian websites and national libraries. I've added a couple of sources already, but I will need some time to go through the Hungarian sources. I ran into the same problem writing articles on other Hungarian artists, such as Joseph Csaky and Gustave Miklos: names in Hungarian are reversed and accents are important in online searches (e.g., Csáky József, Miklós Gusztáv). I will need a few days most likely. Coldcreation (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Further reading section, with four entries. The Németh András et al document in particular has some detailed information on the artist (in Hungarian) that I have yet to adapt in English to the article, as a source. Some of the information is already in the article but there is further material of interest. So, I will need a few days to go through these. I have only just begun the search in Hungarian. Thank you Curiocurio for your contribution (if you reconsider your vote in light of the newly added material it would be much appreciated. That way, too, I will have a chance to research further). Coldcreation (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Hungarian reference (via Google Translate) as in inline citation which is what the article currently lacks. Referencing the artist's personal website is not helpful because it counts as a primary (and biased) source and doesn't contribute to notability. The Hungarian source appears to be a good one and what is needed is more articles or books in the same vein. Curiocurio (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other notable/reliable Hungarian sources, in addition to Németh András et al. Hopefully this coming week I'll have more time to address them. Coldcreation (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This website says one of his works is in the Hungarian National Gallery.[21] If that could be confirmed, it would be an automatic keep. I was unable to verify it. Curiocurio (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet confirmed the presence of the artists work at the Hungarian National Gallery. However, the fact that his work continues to be auctioned in Paris at Hôtel Drouot is a good indication that he was not "just an average person who liked to paint". Hôtel Drouot is the Parisian equivalent to Christie's or Sotheby's. The selection process for entry into sales at Drouot (through the Commissaire-priseurs) is as stringent as it is for the major British counterparts. The recent improvements at the Constant Detré article show that the artist—while not as renown as members of his entourage—was in fact notable. That said, I will delve further into Hungarian references shortly. Coldcreation (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article in it's current state is poorly written fancruft, and ~~possibly~~ a COI creation, he is included in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists [22] which means the subject meets WP:ANYBIO criteria. I think the article should be pruned to the basic facts and verifiable sources, and could exist as a short article. Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it has a good start on the sources, of course more can always be added, but it is a good start in verifying that it meets WP:GNG. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the newly identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obvious keep per discussion and post-nomination improvement. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Bilga Khatun[edit]

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

This is an 8th-century person from Central Asia. A discussion formerly took place about a fictional rendition of the person; during which time the article was reworked into what it is now, and the discussion became extremely messy. This is a procedural nomination to get a discussion about the actual person. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per my GT-reading of the Turkish refs in the Biography section, they say "She is the mother of the Turkish Khan of the Göktürk State, Bilge Khan." and not much more (about her). Also, they don't seem to be very WP:RS on the topic of history. I don't know what the zh.wikisource.org ref adds. So I'm still at delete. The character has a place at Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Cast_and_characters. Also, Geschichte, this new afd could use some "Note: This discussion has been included in the list of..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous commenters Teavannaa John Cummings Styyx Phso2 Piotrus Limorina TTN Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång saying these are not RS: Sözcü [23], A Haber [24], Hürriyet [25], Akşam [26] [27], Takvim [28]. Regarding the content of the sources, I translated them, see here. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Styyx, "You need access" (your gdoc). And I think for an article about history we should be able to find something like a historybook. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to make it public -_- Try this. If it doesn't work I don't know. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I just found out the Orhun Writings is Orkhon inscriptions. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, that worked. Ok, that is something. I don't know the Washington Post from the Daily Mail here, and I still prefer historybooks for history. Redirect to Bilgä Qaǧan is a possibility. I assume that "Orhun Writings" is the same as Orkhon inscriptions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: aside from the name, is there any connection between the "8th-century person from Central Asia, mother of Bilgä Qaǧan" and the character in the TV series? This seems very far-fetched, and the character seems hardly "a fictional rendition of the person"--Phso2 (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phso2, the Turkish refs in the bio-section seems to say yes, the writers based the character on the person. Seems a little off, but it's fiction, where Mark Twain can appear on a starship. A.k.a artistic license, or WP:FILMHIST. Of course, the refs could be wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phso2, there is at least one writer and one director from the show on record in 2018 (shortly before the 5th/final season began) mentioning they based this particular character on the specific historical figure (particularly the historical figure's noble personal qualities that made her renowned alongside her husband). I will try to find those, but it's unlikely, as they were IG live and short interview pre-season-premiere fluff snippets. I will search YT when I get a chance, later. Teavannaa (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what appears from these sources is that the TV character is rather loosely based on, or inspired by, the actual person (at least some people in the prodution say so...); the section about the fictional character should be moved to the article about the series, or an article dedicated to its characters.--Phso2 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bilgä Qaghan, her son. I doubt there is anything worth merging. The majority of the article is about historical fiction, not history, which is not appropriate for WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is kept we can trim that section, per Halime_Hatun#In_popular_culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve I would distinguish between the historical person (of some import, clearly) and the fictional depiction thereof (of somewhat dubious notability), and focus this on the former. Cut down the 'In popular culture' section to literally just a passing mention, and remove all but one or two (the closest to RS) references to support that. That will leave a very short stub, but one that could later be built upon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mitchell (rugby union)[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Oppose Thanks for notifying me. I see your point about Major League Rugby, but WP:NRU only comes into play if an article does not meet the WP:GNG test, and this one does. Mitchell has “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, rather than just brief mentions. See for instance “Cork man Mitchell making big impression in Major League Rugby in the US” and the Americas Rugby News page “Ben Mitchell leaves Austin for San Diego”, both all about him. The second of those predicts that he will soon be of interest to the United States national rugby union team. Moonraker (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the 42 article, did not see this one when searching for sources, this may well qualify it for WP:GNG so will remove, the Americas Rugby News article I believe is not significant coverage as it just states him joining a side and aren't wholly independent. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malacchi Esdale[edit]

(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 signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

Delete - best source is this which is insufficient Spiderone 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Howden[edit]

(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 teams so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Garber[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby not a notable league under WP:NRU), only breif mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Santiago (violist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meeson[edit]

(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 or news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create, 2007-02 ✗ deleted

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Jamshedpur[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:LISTN. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons. Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The only thing I found when doing a WP:BEFORE search was Skyscraper City, which is a deprecated source. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Jamshedpur' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources Spiderone 15:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 14:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this list technically meets my standards. I am willing to re-consider. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 13 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) 08:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar Lee-Lo[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. I couldn't find anything that suggests that he can pass GNG Spiderone 20:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – DarkGlow (✉) 10:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmut Schnackenburg[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would a Generalmusikdirektor of the Opernhaus Wuppertal not be notable? Some refs that could be used: Munzinger, Mozart, Die Zeit, Orff world premiere. Kindly revert that nomination, and next time look a little deeper. I have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reply @Gerda Arendt: I do not appreciate your abrupt and rude tone, nor do I care for your lack of time today. Someone's position or job role does not immediately guarantee them notability on Wikipedia, but thanks for finding those sources. If you find the precious time, feel free to add them to the main article. However, I do not see four sources as SIGCOV, and I will not be reverting my nomination. Thanks! – DarkGlow (✉) 16:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today is Sunday, and I am not supposed to work at all. I tried to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Landauer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what he'd have to with bands. How about informing Classical music, DarkGlow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some sources and premieres. Grimes2 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grimes2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KittenKlub (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Connolly[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby and Italian Super 10 are not notable leagues under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Pedersen[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Ryberg[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect after (since it's not a merge). Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Choice Award for Choice Liplock[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable trivia Spudlace (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not of encyclopedic interest and no sign of passing WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Choice Awards, it is very briefly mentioned there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Malifa[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Hasn't actually played internationally as suggested in the article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-09 ✍️ create

Keep, I believe this person passes WP:NRU due to the four games they played for the U.S. national team, which is classified as a "high-performance" squad. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Devonian Wombat:, have just noticed this in the article. Having looked on all stats websites (such as itsrugby) he is not listed as having international caps, but he is listed in match reports for international games during the period suggested. I'm going to remove the Afd because of this. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jegan Rajshekar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and fails WP:NFILMMAKER. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1) It's an unsourced BLP article. 2) It was written most likely by the subject himself (= COI). 3) I don't think we need a third... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. At very best might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, subject to WP:COI — Amkgp 💬 16:08, 10 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airbahn[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Unsourced and reads as an advertisement. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Airblue - Found no reliable sources. Owned by Airblue so it's a possible redirect/light merge target. Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airblue per the above, can always be reversed if it attracts more coverage after it does start operating. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Spudlace (talk) 12:25, 13 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) 07:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke White (rugby union)[edit]

(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) 15:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-09 ✍️ create

Delete - fails NRU and only gets WP:MILL coverage Spiderone 19:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Winter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Victoria Winter

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

This page was created without any taking permission from Victoria Winter. And she herself wanted to remove the page but couldn't do so. So I request the admins to remove her page as quickly as possible. Amansingh197 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAQ/Article_subjects#How_can_I_get_rid_of_the_article_about_myself_or_my_company? any particular arguments on notability or some paragraphs to look into? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because of the request, but because of analogy with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Rivadeneira and other discussions. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geschichte. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:15, 11 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) 07:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelepi Fifita[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nabih Berri. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Nabih Berri[edit]

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

Unsourced and does not appear to meet WP:GNG, or in-depth enough to warrant a split. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ I wish people wouldn’t use mainspace to create drafts but that’s pretty clearly what this is. Nabih Berri is one of Lebanon’s elder statesmen and possibly the longest serving parliament speaker in the world. There’s no rush to delete this and with a bit of time there us plenty of scope for sourcing and improvement.Mccapra (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nabih Berri. The biographical article would benefit from the addition of this timeline and is not so long as to merit a WP:SPINOUT. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I sourced it, fixed the mistakes and added 2018 general election as well. Maudslayer (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' There is no justification for this content split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the sourcing and cleanup by done by Maudslayer. Mccapra (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nabih Berri: This is an unnecessary split WP:CFORK. Article Nabih Berri already discusses his political career and there is no reason to split off these details into their own article. There are sources that show the notability of their political career, but none that address their electoral history as a seperate topic. If sources do not separate their political career and electoral history, but treats them as one topic, the article shouldn't be split either unless there is a very good reason to. // Timothy :: talk 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nabih Berri. "Electoral history of X" spinoffs are not routinely done for just every politician who exists — they're permitted only for figures (such as prime ministers or presidents) whose main biographical articles are extremely long and in need of the splitout for size management purposes, and for anybody who can't meet that standard (i.e. the vast majority of politicians) their electoral history is addressed in the biographical article rather than a separate page. Berri's article is not long enough to need this to be a separate standalone page, however. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 12 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) 07:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Rogers[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did get interviewed on rugby by the New York Times once but that was just a brief mention/quote/interview and I can't find anything else. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Gough[edit]

(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) 15:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though he ran back a 100m try which made news in New Zealand, he still doesn't pass WP:GNG with no other qualifying sources I can find. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best this is WP:BLP1E because of the 100m try mentioned above Spiderone 22:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Somaliland#Demographics. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somalilanders[edit]

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

Unsourced and does not appear to meet WP:LISTN; especially when List of Somalilanders exists. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Somaliland#Demographics, which covers the topic better than the present article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cordless Larry. Mccapra (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Buufin has now added some sources, but they mostly discuss Somalis in general, not people from Somaliland specifically. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somaliland#Demographics: per above. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Finau[edit]

(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 rugby league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him joining sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NRU, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet NRU or GNG Spiderone 16:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fangaiuiha[edit]

(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 signing for sides so player doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NRU. Only blog/non-independent coverage at best. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falling short of GNG and NRU Spiderone 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zinzan Elan-Puttick[edit]

(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) and only brief mentions and news of joining sides therefore not qualifying him for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great name, fails WP:GNG after a search - only mention I could find was a brief match report from the game the Austin newspaper covered. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's be honest, if sources did exist, they shouldn't be that hard to find given this guy's unique name. I think it's quite clear that he doesn't pass GNG Spiderone 20:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Abdelmonem[edit]

(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) and no sources that offer anything but a brief mention or news of him joining a side, so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find any GNG-qualifying coverage on him. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fenix TX#Members. Consensus that the subject is adequately covered at the target (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fenix TX band members[edit]

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

Unsourced and does not appear to meet WP:LISTN; information could easily be covered on the main Fenix TX article. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary repeat of information that is already at the main Fenix TX article, including the lineups table and the timeline graph. In fact, if someone quits the band tomorrow both articles would need to be updated, which is pointless. No need to merge or redirect. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 03:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenix TX#Members, no need for separate page but outright deletion is not necessary either. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to maintain page history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenix TX#Members: topic is already covered in this location // Timothy :: talk 05:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Schade[edit]

(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), no sources to indicate that the player qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and could not find anything that would pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kody O'Neil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kody O'Neil (2nd nomination)

(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 sources only offer a brief mention or of the news of him signing for a team therefore not qualifying him for WP:GNG. Previous nomination keep was related to Major League Rugby being added to WP:NRU without any discussion. It is not classified as notable league and therefore the player doesn't qualify. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the previous discussion can be found here Spiderone 14:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, and never actually passed the SNG in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player. The league does not confer automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NRU and GNG Spiderone 18:19, 11 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) 08:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jope Motokana[edit]

(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) and none of the sources give anything other than a brief mention or news of him joining a side, therefore not qualifying him for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG after a search. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet relevant criteria Spiderone 09:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur Joshi[edit]

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

Unsourced Page . Actor fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG 42.106.199.217 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. The article is unsourced to boot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear apparent consensus to delete but a large number of sources appear to have been added after all comments were made, making the comments on it being unsourced no longer accurate. Any assessment on if the additions actually demonstrate notability would make for a clearer, more informed consensus. Pinging @Johnpacklambert and ChunnuBhai: if you wish to reconsider or confirm your opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing that amounts to significant coverage is this which is not sufficient Spiderone 14:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the 9 sources added to the article 6 are user generated content, 1 is a trivial mention in a TV listing, the ABP News source is a report on rumours that she might be appearing in the tv show Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai (which she did, as a minor character for 1 series that only appeared in flashbacks) which leaves just the Tribune News source. I don't think one good source is enough to show notability, and I couldn't find anything else. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SKIDATA (India) Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Promotional article about a tech company which doesn't pass NCORP. Google search reveales sources that mention the company trivially. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company which seems to have been the main focus of the briefly active contributing editor. It is promotionally worded ("grand success" in this, "esteemed" in that). Searches find 2009 and 2013 coverage of joint-venture announcements, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing evidence of notability. (Much of the text, including the peacockery, is repeated in the SKIDATA article.) AllyD (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playlyfe[edit]

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

Has been tagged for notability since 2017. Fails NCORP and Google searches don't reveal sources that cover the company indetail. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elico[edit]

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

Promotionally written article of a company which doesn't appear to satisfy any criterion from NCORP. Google search mostly reveals annoucements. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 8 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) 16:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Robles[edit]

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

No evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO; even the most basic biographical information seems to be impossible to find. I found no meaningful hits in Google News or Google Books and nothing significant in ProQuest while searching 'Augusto Robles arbitro' or while searching 'Augusto Robles Moran'. When even his nationality is disputed, I can't see there being that much concrete information about him to expand this page with. There are no obvious redirect or merge targets. If anyone does find sources showing WP:SIGCOV (i.e. more than just being name checked in a match report or database listing), please let me know. Spiderone 12:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:35, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Gordon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails both WP:GNG and WP:NRU. I nominated this a year ago, and it was kept on the mistaken belief that the US league fell under the rugby notability guidelines. It turns out the US league was added without discussion, and after a review it was correctly removed (disclosure: I was involved in the discussion.) The only identified sources now or at the prior AfD are press releases (including coverage from an advertising campaign, that's the best source and it doesn't meet GNG) or from sources that are closely tied to the subject, including the subject's former school and the subject's team, or are not independent, such as a US rugby blog, and nothing has changed in the year plus since the last AfD that would make him notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination. Major League Rugby isn't a notable league under WP:NRU, no sources to suggest it qualifies for WP:GNG (actually more references to a footballer of a differing name). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and any relevant SNG Spiderone 15:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, rugby players in the US are not automatically notable. There are several articles in Category:Seattle Seawolves players that should probably go too. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Tanenhaus Winsten[edit]

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

Not seeing enough in the article or elswehere online to pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Promotional aticle created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously (self?)-promotional but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Meets WP:ANYBIO#1 "...received a well-known and significant award or honor". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the award indeed "well-known and significant"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The specific award that complies with ANYBIO#1 is the Hopwood Award, which the article subject did verifiably win. It is "well-known" within the context of the literary world, if not to average people. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher. Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Above award is not a major award, it's a single institution scholarship scheme. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Trust Microfinance Bank[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The only independent reference is a government database, and all I find in Google search is LinkedIn/Glassdoor type references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. They're is virtually no information on it. scope_creep^Talk 13:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bocage International School[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV regarding the said school.HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school clearly fails the notability guidelines. Since there's no in-depth secondary coverage about it anywhere. It's to bad the AfD was even necessary. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? What about the in-depth secondary coverage that I cited in the article before you commented here? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclusion in directories (CIS International Schools Directory 2009/10) is considered as trivial per WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:SIRS also mentions "multiple". HiwilmsTalk 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Firstly this is not mere inclusion in a directory, but hundreds of words of prose and the equivalent of an infobox. And secondly, per WP:NSCHOOL, which is part of WP:ORG, schools do not have to pass WP:ORGDEPTH: WP:GNG is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a source assessment table. I'm also requesting others to review this and chime in by replying.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Hiwilms
http://www.lebocage.net/index.php/about-us	Self-published	Self-published	Covers basic info	✘ No
CIS International Schools Directory 2009/10	Not from the school itself	Published book	Directory	✘ No
https://www.lexpress.mu/article/368553/international-baccalaureate-955-taux-reussite-au-bocage	News	Published	Features achievement	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Only one source qualifies. WP:SIRS/WP:MULTSOURCES explicitly mentions that multiple qualified sources are needed to establish notability. HiwilmsTalk 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will chime in by replying that the book covering this school and cited in the article certainly has significant coverage, even more so than the newspaper article that you agree does so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG, obviously. Which ones were you thinking of? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had difficulty finding sources until I searched specifically in French. [29] [30]. Passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say the first source works. The second one though, not so much. Them having a debate (and getting coverage somewhere for it) are extrmely trivial. Most schools have debates. The article doesn't even talk about the school even in passing. Let alone is there anything in-depth on it. As should be obvious, name drops don't count for notability. Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've nominated quite a few African schools for deletion in a short time frame. While this one wasn't specifically your nomination, I stopped at the first two sources, since it is significantly more difficult to keep articles than it is to delete them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying my opinion about sourcing isn't valid because I've nominated articles related to Africa before? If so, it's a little mediocre of you to do so. Especially since I said the first source is fine. I would cite AGF, but I'm sure your already aware of it and are just choosing to ignore it. Although, I'd guess you'd be fine citing it when someone is saying something about another keep voter. Anyway, your assertion that it's significantly harder to keep articles is obvious bullshit. One, because there's millions of articles in Wikipedia that never go to AfD in the first place. Also though, the requirement of two in-depth sources is an extremely low bar that any notable subject able to easily pass. I find it pretty hilarious how much capitulating keep voters usually do even over that though. It's almost like everything has to be handed to them on a silver platter and that there shouldn't be any notability guidelines at all. BTW, this is called "articles for deletion" for a reason. I.E. there's going to be a major slant toward non-notable articles being posted here, because that's literally what it's for. It's not "articles for keeping" or "neutral articles that just exist and no one cares about." All the complaints about this by keep voters is like going to a waste compound place, complaining about all the garbage there, and then criticizing all the waste disposal people for doing their jobs. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing about you apart from the fact you have nominated several African schools for deletion in a short time frame. I contribute to African topics when I can and I'm pretty decent at finding local sources online. When someone nominates an article for deletion, the article is undersourced, but the article is notable, it's on keep !voters to demonstrate the article's notability. Given the fact there are a dozen similar articles all up for deletion simultaneously, all of them are from an undercovered area of Wikipedia, and most to all of them seem to have WP:GNG-qualifying coverage in local sources, it's quite a bit of work to do the research to demonstrate their notability. So it's not "obvious bullshit," and I please ask that you retract that statement. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed you said more then that. You don't have to though. It's an uncalled for and off topic comment, that you should have been more sensitive about making. Especially considering the current slandering campaign going on about me in relation to it. That your comment only feeds into. Which, I assume is why you made it. Anyway, your claim all the AfDs related to schools in Africa pass WP:GNG is simply wrong and other stuff existing isn't relevant to this anyway. Also, it's not on me that there's a lot of work involved in this. It's not like there isn't a lot of involved when nominating things to do the proper research behand. While keep voters just have to find two in-depth sources and then they can call it done, nominators have to exhaustively check everywhere to make sure there aren't any. Then they have to combat the endless barrage of personal attacks and clearly fraudulent votes. Neither of which is particularly easy. You can just post about an article on ARS to and have a bunch of people come to vote keep based on absolutely nothing so the article is kept. Nominators don't have that options. So, spare me the complaints about how hard this is. Neither side is great to be on, but it's much more harder and more mentally taxing to be a nominator. Period. Anyway, I think we should leave it at that so other people can have a chance to participate. AfDs aren't for personal discussions or grievances. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the L'express article is a good source, and so is the article from Le Mauricien, "Le Bocage fête ses 25 ans : Une approche cosmopolite de l’éducation", presented by SportingFlyer. I believe that this demonstrates notability. I apologize if anyone finds this comment mentally taxing. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. None of the Keep votes has showed actual SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article from Le Mauricien, and the book by Bingham cited in the page already provide significant and detailed coverage, enough to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Note that WP:AUD currently applies only to organizations, so local coverage of a politician cannot be rejected on that basis alone; WP:NPOL is also not a requirement if WP:GNG is met. There are clearly enough sources to constitute significant coverage, so the question is whether WP:BLP1E applies. While there are numerically more "delete" !votes, they have failed to explain how consistent coverage over a period of several months can be boiled down to just one event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Tubiolo[edit]

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

Article about a subject who clearly does not meet WP:NPOL, moved to draft several times by reviewers and brought back into mainspace by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and is otherwise a hyper-local politician who hasn't received any non-local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete testing positive for COVID-19 and as such disrupting a local event does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, but the article does not demonstrate any credible reason why he could be considered substantially more notable than the norm for a not-ordinarily-notable level of political office. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. He is the most notable politician in Westchester County aside from the County Executive as a result of COVID, he was the first to test positive. There are other legislators in the same body who have wikipedia pages not being proposed for deletion. He is also the one of the ONLY legislators to have switched political parties while in office. This article includes almost 25 sources as well. johnqarlo (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete County-level politicians are very rarely individually notable. KidAd talk 01:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Local politicians are not normally notable, but this is a rare exception. He's gotten considerable coverage not for a single event but for two: his registration change and his Covid-19 diagnosis. FWIW, he's the local legislator for an older brother of mine and they're acquainted, although I don't know the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and even with the two events the coverage is very localized (nothing outside of Westchester) and honestly aren't particularly "major" events as "X Politician tests positive for COVID" is now somewhat of a routine story nowadays. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. This local politician is notable. He's gotten much coverage not for a single event over his COVID diagnosis and one of the few elected officials in New York State to change parties. FWIW Tiffany.k2 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) — Tiffany.k2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep agree per Bearian. VocalIndia (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local politician who, and that includes covid-19, has gotten trivial and non-significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being a local politician that doesn't have the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Not that they would pass WP:NPOL anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the article is not bad enough for TNT so suggest improving it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century[edit]

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

This article is in poor condition, and the subject may not be suitable for a standalone article. Mumps outbreaks are common to the point that few of them are mentioned by experts in higher quality references. The Mumps article contains meaningful information about mumps in the 21st century, so a separate article shouldn't be needed. Velayinosu (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Abstain.~~ Keep but edit The article is in very poor condition, but the information contained is broadly researched, I would hate to waste it. Is it possible to reframe this into a list? Though I agree there are simply so many cases, an article on the topic is a blackhole. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my opinion to keep after reviewing List of earthquakes in 2020. I think it might be useful to establish a coherent notability inclusion criteria to better manage the list, but a list it seems valuable as nonetheless. Zkidwiki (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate If the article receives significant coverage but is currently in a condition inappropriate for the mainspace, it can be sent to draft space where editors can fix it and determine it's future. Maybe renaming to Mumps outbreaks and adding in some historically significant cases. The notability as a group is debatable, it must receive significant coverage in multiple sources as a group, mumps outbreaks, sure, but mumps outbreaks in the 21st century is harder to come by. The coverage for individual events generally does not qualify for notability of the group just as articles that focus on trends without going into detail on this time period. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Not a very good article, but if we move it to draftspace, somebody could turn it into a good piece of work. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the page is moved to draft space, it will just add to the massive backlog there while being ignored by our readership and potential editors. In due course, it would then be deleted by other busybodies per WP:G13. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very good idea to assume that stuff like that will happen. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a very reasonable assumption that that could happen, which is why draftifying long-extant articles should never be an option on the table. It could serve as a perfect route to deletion with no editor discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing anything resembling a reason to delete in the nomination. It is our policy that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue from my perspective is notability. Mumps is a normal childhood illness in countries that do not vaccinate against it, and mumps outbreaks are common enough that it is not possible to list all of them. If the article were restricted to outbreaks that meet some criterion, then it would be more manageable but then it could likely easily be merged into the main mumps article, so why even have the article at that point? Velayinosu (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep This page should be judged as a list rather than a regular article. It seems to satisfy the second criterion of the common selection criteria, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". The guideline says "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their 'parent' topic", but this list seems too big for that. It is questioned whether mumps outbreaks in the 21st century specifically is a notable topic, but limiting the list to the 21st century could be an editorial decision to keep the list size manageable and exclude periods for which sources might not exist.

Personally, I get a lot of encyclopedic value out of this list. I tend to think of mumps as a disease that's defeated in first-world countries, yet seeing just so many outbreaks listed is confronting, and drives the point home that this battle is ongoing. Lists like this may have tremendous value for the vaccine-hesitant. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could work as a list; we might need to argue a bit on the Talk page about what the inclusion criteria should be, but that's a day-to-day editing affair, not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per above discussion; I don't think it's so bad it rates a WP:TNT. I don't object to a list, move, or re-naming. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus whether to keep (and improve) or merge the article. I suggest a merge discussion on the talk page to resolve the issue. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sırp Sındığı[edit]

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

A problematic article bordering on WP:HOAX. It is very possible that this supposed battle and the Battle of Maritsa were one and the same since the Battle of Maritsa was also called "sırp sındığı" and both battles took place...on the Maritsa river. I propose this article be deleted and an explanation of the historical confusion and ambiguity be written up in the Background section of Battle of Maritsa. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: meets MULTSOURCES and SCHOLARSHIP. Articles relies on two sources which are published by renowned printing presses (Cambridge and Chicago) The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into Battle of Maritsa, though much of what is on this page is unreferenced.Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Make clear this supposed battle is recorded only in the Ottoman sources and contradicts Hungarian, Serbian, papal and other European sources. Not because this battle really happened but because we will finish with the edit war on the article about the Battle of Maritsa. Sooner or later, some enthusiastic editors will change that article to accommodate this joke.

The problem is that few contemporary historians took information about this battle from the Ottoman sources. They never checked other sources. There is no way for king Louis I of Hungary to meet Emperor Charles in Bohemia, assemble the army, march to battle, lost it and go to Poland in September to discuss a crusade with other European rulers. There is no way that Bosnian heretics and Serbian schismatics march as crusaders. Only somebody who has no clue about the medieval Europe may think it is possible for an apostolic king of Hungary to be under command of a schismatic landlord. In 1364, Vukashin was not a king and co-ruler of Serbia, he was just a landlord with a title of prince or perhaps a despot.N Jordan (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is NOT a hoax. Sırpsındığı took place in 1364: [31] [32] [33] [34], while the Battle of Maritsa took place in 1371. Sırpsındığı is sometimes referred as "Birinci Meriç Muharebesi" (First battle of Maritsa), while Battle of Maritsa is sometimes called "İkinci Meriç Muharebesi" (Second battle of Maritsa). The second battle was a consequence of the first battle. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of why we should keep this article, but clearly indicate it is not recorded in any European sources. For example, on the night of the battle (September 26, 1364), king Louis I was in Krakow, as a participant of Congress of Kraków. That was a well known event in Polish and European history. We even know about a famous banquet at the house of the Kraków merchant Mikołaj Wierzynek, organized by the city council. Guillaume de Machaut wrote a poem about that. Jan Matejko created a painting: http://www.pinakoteka.zascianek.pl/Matejko/Images/Uczta_u_Wierzynka.jpg. N Jordan (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think we should keep this article because it is mentioned in the Ottoman sources as its own unique battle, but if the articles are merged, then it might be fine just to make mention that the Ottoman sources seem to refer to a different battle of the same name and location as a possible second battle that occurred. SacredSunflower (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Battle of Maritsa anything which is of use for the project and not POV/unsourced. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 8 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) 09:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ʻIlima Lei Tohi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. The one general reference is a dead link. The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 09:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This probably belongs more in an Oceania/Pacific-related AfD list, there's no Africa connection. Humansdorpie (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even remotely close to showing notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid providing coverage on every person somewhwere alleged to be the illegitimate daughter of a monarch, we need sourcing that is actually reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no apparent notability.--IdiotSavant (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 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 and redirect to National Payments Corporation of India#NPCI International Payments Limited. No arguments substantiating independent notability have been presented, there's an existing sub-section Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPCI International Payments Limited[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced stub with no encyclopaedic value, about a non-notable recent subsidiary company: fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NPCI: as a stand alone, this article fails WP:CORP. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that would make sense, but that was already done yesterday and immediately reverted by the article creator. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a redirect would be reverted again by the creator 42.106.199.217 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article already exists as a section at National Payments Corporation of India#NPCI International Payments Limited due to lack of notability of being a standalone article. 42.106.199.217 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this topic fails notability. Not a single reference meets the criteria for notability. The topic is also already written about at the National Payments Corporation of India article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dnt Delete NPCI International Payments Limited is a new subsidiary company of NPCI, NPCI International already in talks with France, Canada, Australia, Bhutan and other Asian countries. NPCI CEO said in a interview within next 2 or 3 years you will see lots of development in NPCI International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tufan0066 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, (NCorp) WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MDLIVE[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable small private company. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you remove their own website as a source and the press releases, not much is left, so it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sig coverage in both Reuters and STAT News. Natureium (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examining the references;

[35] Company page. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP.
[36] Company page. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP.
[] Unable to open.
[37] Company page. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP.
[38] Press-release. Dependent coverage. Fails WP:SIRS
[39] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance
[40] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, Sculley has an undisclosed stake and sits on the board of directors of Florida-based MDLive, a company that provides patients with remote access to a licensed physician. Sculley said he sees telemedicine and online mental health services “going mainstream” in coming years.... On MDLive’s mobile app and website, patients can consult a doctor for $49 per visit. MDLive claims its network of board certified physicians can treat a variety of ailments, such as allergies, infections and sports injuries Passing mention. Fails WP:SIRS. Not-indepth, merely reporting on the service. Fails WP:ORGIND.
[] Unable to open.
[41]. MDLIVE Secures $23.6 Million in Funding led by Heritage Group and Sutter Health Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
[42] Company page. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP.

Examining these, we find 3 are company pages, 3 fail CORPDEPTH as routine announcements, 2 dead links, 4 fails WP:SIRS as either dependent sources or self-published. The Reuter is two small paragraphs that don't constitute in-depth analysis an fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to see how this is notable in any shape or form, so I am also going with Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above analysis of sources, none of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 11 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) 08:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medic Mobile[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable. Spam target. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is sourced exclusively to websites of dubious reliability to say the least, and it is very heavily promotional, to the extent that even in the unlikely event it were notable WP:TNT would apply. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 11 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) 08:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amit M. Patel[edit]

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

Not a notable academic or businessperson. The sources are dire - press releases and promotional listings - and the only attempt at a claim to passing WP:NACADEMIC is "Patel is a member of the American Academy of Periodontology and American Dental Association"; however, these are paid memberships [43][44], not selective fellowships as outlined by NACADEMIC, so they don't count towards notability at all. There's an Amit M. Patel on Google Scholar [45] who some might argue passes NACADEMIC C1, but it's a different guy; he studies electronics, not dentistry. As best as I can tell, this AM Patel does not have a significant citation record. [46] Spicy (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage. The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources help in verifying notability. He also fails WP:NACADEMIC. I don't see him even pass WP:GNG, so it is a sure delete in my view.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass GNG and if there was NDENTIST, probably wouldn't pass that either. Natureium (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage. WP:FAILN Serv181920 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others. -Hatchens (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare LPMud[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Its main available sources are by George Reese, which sounds nice in the refbombed citation quotes but is the game's developer, making these primary sources. The Net Games citation is brief, gameguide info. Ultimately, the sources do not go into any depth about the subject itself and all the exceptional claims come from the developer himself. A potential merge to LPMud could work, but if we go based on the secondary sources, there's nothing independently noteworthy to merge. czar 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2007-09 AVATAR (MUD) ✓ keep all

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered World[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Only secondary source coverage is brief within the two listed sources. The other sources are affiliated with the developer (not independent). Could merge to LPMud#Evolution of LPMuds but it's a stretch. czar 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking significant coverage. Only two of the 8 sources are actually reliable, and both only offer brief mentions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. THere is a rough consensus to delete this article, especially given a genuine request to do so ticket:2020103010017404. As pointed out, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Here, there *is* a rough consensus, and the only issue to consider is whether the subject is "non-public". Given that they are clearly not very high-profile, I do not think that there is enough here to suggest that the policy does not apply. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Holtfreter[edit]

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

This is a marginally notable subject, and account claiming to represent them has requested deletion (see history). Their request doesn't require deletion, but warrants a discussion on topic, for a non-famous person. At the moment of this nomination, 5 out of 6 citations are to her university (ASU). I don't see substantial independent coverage discussing her, as opposed to articles by her, or articles using her as a source about something else. I will concede she is well published and successful in her field. But, I feel that doesn't rise above the typical professor, who has to be published and seen as an expert in their field. This is a borderline case, and I could be turned, if I saw substantial coverage by somebody with no connection to her or ASU. Rob (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator of the article was going off of WP:NPROF, but it's not clear what qualifies Holtfreter here—they may have been referring to her editorship in Feminist Criminology (criterion 8), but that journal's article says it ranks in the bottom half of publications for that field. I am unable to locate major independent news coverage, etc., that might bolster claims of adequate notability. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for notability through WP:PROF#C1 and highly cited publications [47] is not marginal. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Haven't looked into this too deeply but WP:BIODEL likely applies if nc/borderline, especially if the editor claiming to be the individual verifies their identity through OTRS (not sure if that's strictly required, or if the subject has done that yet). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein, *IF* the anon is the subject, they seem to have a poor grasp on how having her published works cited almost 4000 times would naturally lead to her also being written about. She works in the public domain so remaining invisible isn’t an option after so many articles have been authored. Glee^anon 00:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. gnu 57 21:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Passes WP:Prof. I'm not sure of the veracity of the requests for deletion. If they are genuine I would not object to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per request of the subject / WP:BIODEL. This is a person who has not sought publicity and female academics get enough crap as it is. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a resume. All these references are to her institution. Most independent source I could find was Brittanica. Trillfendi (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Independence of sourcing is a complete irrelevance for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, the article can’t primarily be based on the institution she works for. That’s not how Wikipedia works. And one of the sources is literally called “Kristy Holtfreter CV”. That is crazy (worse that the source is dead). Trillfendi (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CVs are perfectly acceptable as sources for non-controversial factual information. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case for passing WP:PROF#C1 is good, and the article content seems rather dry and unprovocative. It would help to get confirmation that the person requesting deletion really is the subject (sadly, a harasser trying to get a woman's page deleted sounds all too plausible, for example). As to the sourcing concerns, while additional secondary sources would be good, there's a big difference between using a CV as a reference and writing an article in the manner of a CV. XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C1 is likely met [48]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, ~~if the identity of the requester can be verified, otherwise snow keep.~~ With lots of papers with 100+ citations, small author list, first author, etc; the case for WP:NPROF C1 is solid. That's supported by the chief-editorship of a new-ish journal. There is no question that this would be a keep in the absence of a request from the subject. As XOR'easter points out, it is not certain that we have such a request; even if we do, I don't think notability is marginal as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. we only delete on request if the notability is marginal. This isn't marginal, going by the criteria in WP:PROF. Nor does she try to stay strictly private--Google shows a vimeo lecture, and chair of conferences However, her work does deal with consumer frauds, so if there are genuine problems of harassment or the like, the ed. or whoever knows what they are should email me confidentially as a member of arb com. But if there are, I'm not sure how removing the Wikipedia article would help considering the thousand of ghits. (the article is bona fide--it comes from a WP project) DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODEL. Sure, she may pass WP:NPROF but it's not clear to me from the google search nor article that she passes the GNG. In that, independent reliable sources write enough about HER or her writings to support an article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem I see is that there is no evidence that the multiple requests to delete by a red link are genuine. There are procedure for such requests to identify themselves and these have not been used. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Agree, we shouldn't be doing a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE without OTRS verification that it is actually the person in question. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, at the moment we have no way of knowing if the deletion request really comes from the article's subject. I have left a detailed reply regarding how to file an OTRS ticket in response to User:Splishsplashsplosh's question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How do I delete a page that was made without my permission?, and I also left a note at User talk:Splishsplashsplosh. We will have to see if they follow up. Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has requested deletion via OTRS with identity verified. User:Splishsplashsplosh is verified as Dr. Kristy Holtfreter. OTRS agents can see documentation at ticket:2020103010017404. Courtesy pings to ProcrastinatingReader, Xxanthippe, XOR'easter, Russ Woodroofe, Joseph2302, and Nsk92 who indicated above that identity confirmation may affect their opinion in this discussion. I have not personally reviewed this article and take no position in the deletion discussion. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thank you. I am actually undecided at the moment but am leaning towards delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject certainly unambiguously passes WP:PROF, but notability is not overwhelming here and she is not particularly visible as a public figure, even taking into account DGG's comments above. It would help if User:Splishsplashsplosh participated in this AFD and provided a bit more of an explanation for why she wants the article deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE- now that identity has been confirmed, BLPREQUESTDELETE says we can delete for marginally notable people, which applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know the reason of the subject for the request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Marginally notable person; the person in question has requested a delete; Only primary sources in the references; Vikram Vincent 11:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject easily passes GNG and WP:PROF. She holds a notable post in an reputed instituation. Serankail (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a strong point about PROF, but are completely wrong about WP:GNG. GNG requires substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. There is not a single source, independent of the subject, who writes substantially about the subject. 5 out of 7 citations are to her employer's website. One is to a publication she contributes to. The only independent citation that helps her notability is https://ascdwc.com/awards/professional-awards, which definitely helps the PROF argument. However, it merely lists her name, so doesn't help GNG. --Rob (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can find some thousand or more sources independent of the subject by clicking on the scholar link. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Those sources are certainly independent bit it is unclear, without substantial further examination, if any of them can be used to justify passing WP:GNG here. GNG requires that the sources address the subject "directly and in detail". Citations in scholarly articles usually don't do that (although there are exceptions). Typically, they are brief mentions of the work cited, perhaps 1-2 sentences. A published review would be different in this regard, or a paper/chapter specifically dealing with the subject's paper/book/monograph. But it's unclear, without looking further, if any of the citations in GoogleScholar provide coverage of this kind. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Its even on the keeps, and deletes. Feels like it needs to more time to make it more clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vincentvikram - we have tended to delete articles about academics who are marginally notable and request deletion of their article. I would agree with this longstanding practice. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject is definitely notable under WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C8. However, WP:PROF is a fairly technical guideline, and I feel that in the case of authenticated WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requests (such as this one), there needs to be a stronger case for notability, preferably under WP:GNG or WP:BIO, in order to override the subject's wishes. Here the available coverage appears to be insufficient to establish clear notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I would have much preferred for User:Splishsplashsplosh to comment in this AfD directly, but since that's apparently not forthcoming, ultimately I believe that deletion is the correct option here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this company is not notable. There were some level of consensus that perhaps a merged Telemedicine service providers article could be appropriate encyclopedic coverage of not only Doxy.me but some other similar companies. As editors interested in those other articles were not notified of this discussion, it would not be appropriate to close this as a merge. However, should consensus, whether BOLDLY or through a formal Merge discussion, be reached to create that article, please feel free to reach out to me as I would be happy to restore this article as a redirect so that content (and attribution) may be merged into that new article. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doxy.me[edit]

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

Non-notable startup. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:NCORP, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Based on that, this startup meets the primary criteria listed at WP:NCORP with at least the following sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4. These all meet: 1) WP:SIGCOV, 2) multiple, 3) WP:INDEPENDENT, 4) WP:RS, and 5) WP:SECONDARY. I was also able to find the following sources which appear to satisfy the criteria above but have not been included in the article: 4 and 5 (this is a review but it's from a reliable source so I believe it still meets WP:RS). On top of that, there are almost 2000 results when searching for articles covering the organization. The sourcing is there to meet WP:NCORP, it may just need some help from other editors to better convey notability in how it's written. Keep and tag as a stub. -- Spicypumpkin (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicypumpkin, you've incorrectly interpreted "independent of the subject" to mean "independent of the subject" by solely focussing on WP:INDEPENDENT but you've omitted the requirement listed in WP:NCORP (specifically at WP:ORGIND) for "Independent Content". So of the references you've listed above, this from Business Insider relies entirely on an interview with the CEO, this from dereret.com likewise is entirely based on an interview with the COO, this from Health Care IT News relies entirely on information provided by the founder and finally, this from Tech Radar provides no information whatsoever on *the company* (the topic of this article) so I'm not sure why you included it. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, nor a Yellow Pages. I've provided an analysis of some sources above. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand where the editor above is coming from and I appreciate the thoroughness. It sounds like we've interpreted WP:ORGIND differently, so I've reviewed again and my interpretation still leads me to believe these sources pass. WP:ORGIND appears to mainly weed out anything that's essentially just a rewrite of material published by a primary source (churnalism). I dove into WP:NIS as well in case I was missing something, and I'm not seeing any examples there that support the claim above. I'm not saying that interpretation is incorrect, but I haven't been able to verify this myself within the guidelines. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I posted above about "Independent Content" is taken directly from WP:ORGIND (which is a section within WP:NCORP which is the relevant guideline for companies/organizations. Our policy WP:N explicitly states in the WP:SNG section: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". I'm not sure what bit of the quote I extracted from ORGIND is difficult to understand. ORGIND weeds out *all* material that hasn't clearly been provided by a source unaffiliated to the subject. Everything ... interviews, announcements, press releases, profile pages, financial reports, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They don't. Lets examine them.

[[49]] Fails WP:SIRS. It is a dependent source. An interview. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS

[[50]] A press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND,

[[51]] Forbes reference by a contributor. Forbes is deprecated meaning is not a reliable source. Non-RS.

[[52]] A small profile page in reviews. Fails WP:SIRS

I cant see this one in the UK.

[[53]] Simple listing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

[[54]] A simple profile listing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The coverage is what you find for a small private company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 07:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Understood. My interpretation of these was clearly different, but I can see that most of the sourcing is weak. As a side note, is this Business Insider article a press release? And not to engage in whataboutism here, but it looks like by these standards there’s a lot of spam articles already existing within this arena:

MDLIVE - Of the 6 non-primary sources on the page, 2 are broken links (Refs 3 & 10), 1 is an interview (Ref 6), and 2 won't load for me (Refs 7 & 9). Leaving only this one.
Doctify - About the same as above, most of the 11 sources on the page are either primary, interviews, press release, or behind paywall
Medica - This has 3 sources, one of which I had added previously.
Medic Mobile - 7 sources on the page, not one appears to meet the criteria above
Heal (company) - Sourcing here is better but I'd like to review this one a bit more
Zocdoc - First pass of refs appear to be based on interviews
UbiCare - 8 refs, this is the only one I could actually access
Clover Health - All acceptable sourcing is only focused on the $160 million raised
Phreesia - Company profiles, press release, churnalism, and articles based on interviews

I'm going to work on both cleaning up this one, if there are any other sources, and also see what I can do to clean up those, as I agree this is too important an area not to have the best sourced information possible. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, generally, this and comparable articles like iMedicor and Mercy Virtual into a single article on the telemedicine service providers. BD2412 T 17:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting proposition but none of them are rich in academic content, its all company info. And who would do the work?

Comment That's a great idea, and I'm happy to start drafting that together. I'd suggest when we get to Closer, we might want to relist this, and potentially the others that have been nominated for deletion as well, as we figure out if they aggregate page, hopefully with sufficient material to be noteworthy, will be approved, but if we delete the pages first, that will create a bunch of additional work to find the citations and content, so I can judge what is appropriate. My goal is to get the draft telehealth page done in the next two days, and then I will post the link here. Spicypumpkin (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took longer than anticipated with the election distraction. I put together a draft of this list here. Took a couple off the list due to lack of sourcing or whether it actually made sense to inclde on this list. Some of these pages clearly do not have sufficient sourcing to qualify for a standalone page, but others certainly do (Heal & AmWell for example). This could use some polishing up, particularly in the way it's been sectioned out. And there are likely to be others taht would be qualified to be added to this list. Probably makes sense to defer deletion until we decide on the merge. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

BD2412 actually provided a great idea. Let’s Merge it with other similar articles, using the current draft as the main body. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added another source to the page that covers the company in detail, this article.136.33.173.131 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically fails WP:ORGIND. It is puff piece. Insights Care wants to make everyone including Doctors, Healthcare Executives, Healthcare Companies, Institutes, Patients, Medical Students to be an integral part of our journey to witness fascinating changes on a daily basis due to increased technological intervention and other structural changes. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed this from the article. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. There is a general consensus against a stand-alone article, but also that the information is not useless. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes[edit]

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

This is a collection of predictable reactions of no encyclopedic or lasting value. Nearly every international player "expressed concern" and called for peace/ceasefire. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Similar to the Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, why isn't that deleted? Why not improve the article instead of deleting it? Beshogur (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I oppose all such pages because of their WP:RECENTISM, when there's no lasting WP:NOTABILITY to the reactions. Its an unnecessary WP:FORK from the underlying conflict/issue. When the dust settles it can all be covered in one section about the underlying conflict/issue, we don't need to know exactly what every country said about it. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I can't see a valid reason for losing this information. The least case should be a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or trim heavily and merge. These "reactions to" articles are a blight on Wikipedia, a complete embarrassment. What we have here is a flag salad and a WP:QUOTEFARM. There is no way this passes WP:10YT; nobody is going to look at this in ten years and think "Japan expressed concern, did they? How very interesting." This article only exists as a result of failing to properly distinguish between information with news value and information with encyclopedic value in combination with a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. Creating a sub-article for the sole purpose of keeping the main article clean is a bad solution which should never have happened in the first place. The majority of this content can be summarized with the single sentence "Several countries and supranational organizations expressed concerns.", and the rest can be summarized by noting which countries/supranational organizations condemned which side (or both). WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies here, specifically because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If we summarize it properly from scratch, I don't think there is even any need to retain the edit history for attribution (see WP:CWW) and the article could thus be deleted outright. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything of actual permanent note can be put in the article on the conflict itself. As it stands this is a flagrant violation of the not new guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, that article contains slightly under 70,000 bytes of prose, meaning that this is not a necessary WP:SPLIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: Are you sure? The page itself says that is near 300,000 bytes. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii:, sure, the page does say that, but one must remember that a huge amount of bytes are tied up in things like references, the infobox, and things like that, which do not actually contribute to the amount of text that a reader would usually see. You can find the amount of prose the article has here, under the "prose" section next to "characters". As I'm writing this, it has just over 74,000 bytes of prose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: Thanks for reply. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, otherwise merge As Selfstudier and Beshogur pointed out, there's not a strong reason to delete this information. It's still having encyclopedic value (even it's kinda recent) and shows the reactions like 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#International_reactions section. Since the main page is getting bigger, I think the whole page needs to be splitted.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very common content type for internationally known incidents, and is often excessive to merge into the parent topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trim heavily and merge to the parent article per TompaDompa. There actually is a small amount of interesting content here -- namely, that some international reactions condemned Armenia, while others condemned Azerbaijan, and which ones condemned each country. The parties who just expressed concern in general are of no interest to most readers, as Tompa wrote: Nobody is going to look at this ... and think "Japan expressed concern, did they? How very interesting." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common content for international incidents, and would flood the main article. Its individual pieces of content should be assessed for notability and verifiability, but the whole article does not seem worthy of ejection at this time. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that it's fairly common to see articles like this on Wikipedia, but should it be? While not exactly applicable to this particular article, I'm not impressed by articles titled "International reactions to [attack]" which consist primarily of text like this: "The leader of Afghanistan condemned the attacks and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Albania condemned the attacks and expressed condolences for the victims. ... The leader of Zambia condemned the attacks and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Zimbabwe condemned the attacks and expressed condolences for the victims." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and/or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. I don’t see why this needs a page, but the information is not totally useless. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim heavily into either 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Remove the boilerplate "we're deeply concerned and monitoring the situation" comments which say nothing meaningful. TompaDompa and Mztourist spoke to the reasons. // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, per Mztourist and TimothyBlue. These articles are pure WP:RECENTISM. I look forward to the day when someone finally creates International reactions to World War II. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:RECENTISM I doubt it will be of any significance in the future.Hun ter 00:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Cevallos[edit]

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

Not notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Rivadeneira. Geschichte (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need multiple sources that are independent to show notability. We have one source that is too connected to the award the subject got, there is absolutely no justification for having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't really meet WP:GNG or BLP notability guidelines currently only references one site. And nothing else in the article mentions why they are notable. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best this is WP:BLP1E Spiderone 18:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Directed thinking[edit]

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

Largely incoherent essay reflecting on various nebulous terms. Was not improved since 1292simon declined it at AfC but somehow made it into article space anyway. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried reading this last night at NPP and gave up. Reading it again, it seems to be an assembly of sourced snippets to valid statements about things that aren’t really connected. There may be a valid topic here but I don’t think this article really tackles it. Mccapra (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Apparently it's a legit psychology term,[55], but unless someone wants to salvage this as a counterexample, it's best to start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and Clarityfiend. It is a vaguely New Agey–sounding essay at the moment, and there's hardly anything worth salvaging. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indulgent self-help waffling of no encyclopedic value. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Matchbox (brand). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbox Sky Busters[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Given the lack of references for most content, there is little content to merge although a redirect to Matchbox (brand) may be helpful. The PROD was removed with no valid rationale despite my request to provide one (per best practices) by a habitual deprodder, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but not voting for a keep either. All the information there should be kept, so I vote to merge to the Matchbox brand article and keep this page as a re-direct. Antonio Pizza Face Martin (que fue/) 09:10, 23 October, 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in sources such as Matchbox Toys: A Collectors Guide, Matchbox Toys, 1947 to 1996 and Die-cast Aircraft. The nomination's assertions are therefore false. The worst case would be merger to a page such as Matchbox_(brand)#Die_cast_aeroplanes and so the following policies indicate that deletion is not appropriate. WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All those seem to be pure descriptive catalogues. See for example this page. Did you find anything that goes beyond what is effectively a product description? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge? I'm on the fence between keep and merge, but the 10 pages in Die-cast Aircraft definitely suggests one of the WP:ATD alternatives is more appropriate than deletion. What I can see of the others is pretty inconclusive in my eyes, but one looks like it might have a chapter, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. -2pou (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: The 10 pages sounds good, but the few pages I can access are badly formatted - big photo and one-two sentences of product description, no analysis, no significance, just a catalogue-like entry. Are you seeing anything better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Matchbox brand article and keep this page as a re-direct. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Agwuocha Chukwukadibia[edit]

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

BLP of a subject who has stood unsuccessfully for elected office and authored several self-published books. He was speaker of the Imo State Assembly which might make him notable, but from the dates it appears this may have been an appointment under the dictatorship rather than elected public office. The title ‘Sir’ derives from his being a Knight of St. Christopher (KSC) in the Anglican Diocese of Mbaise. He has done some work as a lawyer that may make him notable, but overall it looks pretty doubtful to me. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — you know it’s a problem when two-third of the sources used in an article aren’t even necessarily about the subject of the article. Fails WP:GNG easily. I also don’t see his work been reviewed significantly hence subject doesn’t satisfy WP:NAUTHOR also. Celestina007 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appointed legislators count as passing WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:NPOL. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPOL per above. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal's Aventura Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominated, as even though it is owned by Universal Studios, it does not really fall under WP:GNG notability guidelines yet. As not really that many other sources to really make a who article about. I would either suggest merge into Universal Studios, or move it into a draft to be worked on. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Universal Orlando Resort, since it is located there. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no indications that this hotel is notable and I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for notability. I considered the option to Merge but the hotel is already mentioned at the Universal Orlando Resort article so in my mind, there's no content that should be merged. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 12 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 and redirect to Menard Limestone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walche Cut, Kentucky[edit]

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

Railroad cut misidentified by GNIS as a community and blindly copied into wikipedia by the creator, who evidently didn't consider looking at other sources. Topographic maps show a railroad feature with no buildings nearby. See this for confirmation that it's a railroad cut. As a railroad cut, it fails WP:GEOLAND. There's some Google books mentions, but majority of them seem to be just using Walche Cut (also spelled Walche's Cut) as a landmark, not directly discussing this cut. Looks to fail WP:GNG as a result. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not out of the question for a cut to be notable in itself, but this one clearly isn't, and it's even more certainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does has geological significance and notability as the type locality of the Walche and Scottsburg limestone members of the Menard Formation as discussed by:

Swann, D. H., 1963, Classification of Genevievian and Chesterian (Late Mississippian) rocks of Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 216, 91 p.

and Droste, J. B., and Keller, S. J., 1995, Subsurface stratigraphy and distribution of oil fields of the Buffalo Wallow Group (Mississippian) in Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin 63, 24 p.

A type locality is a very important component of geologic nomenclature. Paul H. (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Menard Limestone after deleting incorrect designation and all misinformation as to it being a populated place. Paul H. (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally nothing to merge once that is eliminated. Mangoe (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps a redirect is in order? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:28, 8 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. WP:GNG is met. The article will be renamed as he is only notable for his murder. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Robinson (murder victim)[edit]

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

Unsourced since April 2019, only external link seemingly unsourced; fails WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:VICTIM. Opalzukor (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a website/webpage that covers this, here has multiple reviews for wikinotability ie. The Journal for MultiMedia History - here, History Matters: The U.S. Survey Course on the Web - here, Journal of American History - here (subscriptin required), MERLOT - here (peer review). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources from Coolabahapple seem to show WP:GNG; article is in a poor state but requires improving rather than deleting Spiderone 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV - this person died a long time ago and there's zero evidence that he or his alleged killing was every notorious. If you want to fix it, fix it. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with Spiderone that the sources, when searching, do indeed seem to prove the subject passes WP:GNG. AfD is not article cleanup. The sources DO NOT have to be included in the article to make the subject notable. That's why we have the recommendations of WP:BEFORE. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The article doesn't have a single citation for any of the facts presented, and my initial instinct was to delete it because many people get murdered.... and getting killed/murdered doesn't make one particularly notable as that is easily a black-swan event; a one-second google search brings up plenty of articles from what (at quick glance) appear to be notable. Give it a little time to be improved... 10Sany1? (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, expand scope, get better sources - Generally, we do not have articles about people that are only notable due to their murder/death. The murders themselves seem notable though, but the sources leave much to be desired. These murders seem to be significant because they targeted three African-Canadian men in two years on Salt-Spring Island. There also seems to have been some mystery about it and a book written about it. That said, I would think it would be better to change the article to "The murder of William Robinson" or better yet the "1867-1868 Salt Spring Island Murders" (discussing all three murders).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, should probably be renamed to Murder of William Robinson, given his only claim to fame is his murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Murder of William Robinson per above and add sources from above. // Timothy :: talk 10:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website clearly is a reliable source covering the murder, but all the other sources are just reviews of the website that restate information about the murder from it. Is anyone able to find articles about the actual murder and murder victim that isn't just rehashed material from the website? Darryl Kerrigan's link to "a book" is actually just another link to the website. Ironically, currently the website seem to have more notability than William Robinson himself. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a run-of-the-mill murder. Most of the keep !votes are just "there must be sources" excuses. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calamba Medical Center[edit]

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

This article has only cited a single primary source since it was created in 2016 and I was unable to find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE. Except for the same kind of routine trivial coverage on Covid-19 that all hospitals are getting right now. So, there this doesn't pass the notability standards for either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Per prior consensus as an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines. Although, I'll leave it up to voters to decide a redirect is appropriate or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles are to have references, and that is missing. Catfurball (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the hospital: [56], [57] and [58]. It also had a case against a couple of doctors. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:HOS. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, all the sources provided by ASTIG are primary since two are interviews and the other is overwhelmingly court documents. While the other is just a basic trivial listing of their services. None of which work for notability. Especially the thing about a few of their doctors being accused of stuff. Which is from a private legal blog that is heavily based on court documents. Not a news outlet. Also, WP:HOS isn't a guideline about notability or anything else. So there's nothing this needs to "pass" about it. Wikiprojects don't dictate the notability guidelines and no where does WP:HOS act like it is. This does need to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG though. Both of which require multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources and this article still lacks them. ASTIG being miss-leading about things doesn't change that. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "delete" closure per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superastig's sources seem fine and I found no difficulty in finding another one which confirms that this is a respectable establishment; one of the best hospitals in its province. It's a case of WP:NEXIST and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astig and my own WP:BEFORE search which also included [59] as a possible source. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial. The relevant guideline is WP:NORG, and this doesn't meet it. " confirms that this is a respectable establishment; one of the best hospitals in its province." neither is a reason or keeping. And editing cannot improve the page unless the are sources available, that meet WP:NCORP--nobody has proposed any. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the problem with the current sources? Certainly seems like they tick the five NCORP boxes to me. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and Superastig. I can not verify the fact of how many beds it has, but it appears to have had signficiant coverage showing it is "respected." SportingFlyer has found an article from the Philippine Star, which is reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing significant about it. It kinda fails WP:MILL because it's just like any other hospital in the Phillipines, or in this case, the world. Koridas 📣 07:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, sourcing shown by ASTIG is sufficient to pass both WP:GNG and WP:MILL, which is of dubious relevance to this discussion anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Close was delete. The redirect is a personal choice Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HKUST Robotics Team[edit]

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

Likely not notable enough, references consist of largely primary sources, with secondary coverage being trivial or incidental. 17jiangz1 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on all counts. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wondering how others would think about significantly trimming the article then merging into Hong Kong University of Science and Technology? @Spiderone, Ad Meliora, and 17jiangz1:— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could do with a brief mention, but there are probably at least a dozen student teams with similar levels of notability.--17jiangz1 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:18, 8 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) 08:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi Raj[edit]

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

BLP who doesn't pass GNG. Has been tagged for additional citations since 2015 and not yet addressed. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in the real estate business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable chair of a non-notable organization. Created by an SPA in 2015. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumarat Singh[edit]

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

Non notable politician with no indication of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The references are announcements of his appointment as BSP's state president and mentions with no wide coverage. There also appears to be a COI issue here. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as this article doesn't meet WP:GNG . Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 17:04, 10 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. Such expected information about the administration's personnel and planned policies is obviously imminent. Trump's presidency article was reasonably developed by a week after his election, and it's disruptive to allow this to go on that long. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 10:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Joe Biden[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Although we almost know for certain that the Presidency of Joe Biden will take place, the information we have about it is not sufficient enough for a Wikipedia article. The only information in this article is the fact that the presidency will take place, when it will take place, and who will be vice president, all information you can find on various other articles. This page should only be created once we have enough information to actually need one. Philosophy2 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‍‍Telluride (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Frivolous and unproductive nomination is entirely based on an essay. This page clearly satisfies WP:EVENTCRIT, which says: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect and Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact. Nominating this page for deletion when it has existed for less than a day is entirely unhelpful. KidAd talk 08:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Philosophy2 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, your nomination relies entirely on WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay and not Wikipedia policy. KidAd talk 08:49, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavya Thapar[edit]

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

This actress has starred in two films, which is not multiple. Also, as a model, she has not won any awards, so she is not a notable model. This is WP:Too soon until more of her films release. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet 2 is "multiple" --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2018 is too soon? wow. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has done multiple notable films to pass WP:NACTOR. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears GNG and NACTOR are met; with the paid editing issues this probably should have been procedurally closed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Washington (Melbourne)[edit]

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

This neighborhood doesn't exist; this article has been unsourced for 13+ years, and I've checked the official City of Melbourne website and nothing shows up for this neighborhood, but it does have a nextdoor.com page, but even that looks slightly inactive. Even if it did exist, it likely fails WP:GNG anyways. TyNoOutlet (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TyNoOutlet (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Depending on scale, GMaps may show a label sort of like this, but there's no claim to notability. There seems to be a whole set of these Melbourne, FL subdivision articles. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to recreate this and show that it passes WP:GNG, that's fine, but the article as it stands can't be kept right now, and I doubt it passes WP:GNG anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Dwyer (artist)[edit]

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

Page does not meet general notability requirements (WP:NOTE) or the notability requirements specific to individuals (WP:BIO) as there does not seem to be significant media coverage of this individual. I ran searches as well and did not locate any meaningful media coverage of this individual. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that this article is being considered for deletion on the grounds of "notability". Having reviewed the relevant guidelines I am not sure the article is lacking in this regard. For instance, the guidelines state that "Notability is not temporary". As far as I know, the subject is still working as an artist, even if he has not been in the public spotlight of late. Nevertheless I am pursuing other sources and so may be able to add to the existing content. Not sure by when though. Thank you. Jim Bruce (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has exhibited at Royal Hibernian Academy (here), and Limerick City Gallery of Art (here) but a lot more needed to meet WP:NARTIST. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for notability. After searching online, all I found was his website, LinkedIn, blogs, social media; no in-depth coverage in the way of reviews or articles on his work, serious art historical scholarship in books or journals, no museum collections. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject does not pass WP:NARTIST. Serankail (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to look up for sources but really couldnt find anything significant, fails GNG. Billyshudson (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is Billyshudson's 2nd edit in Wikipedia altogether. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and per Netherzone. Spleodrach (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The topic is well-sourced per Gundoganfa, so ultimately it comes down to a difference of opinion whether WP:SYNTH is violated. I see no consensus, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Turkey proxy conflict[edit]

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

Article entirely made upon WP:SYNTH, with the term "proxy conflict" being used in less than %1 of the references, synthesizing events not called a part of this "proxy conflict" in their references under this article. HeydarTalip (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell from Google Scholar results, there is no Russia–Turkey proxy conflict. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ----Երևանցի ^talk 13:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here is my opinion. The conflict between Turkey and Russia has yet resulted in a complete collapse of relations, as the two nations still maintain their embassies and trades. However, Turkey and Russia do have confrontations, but I do believe it doesn't extend in the level of proxy fighting that Iran and Saudi Arabia have. We should find an alternative name for it. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some of it: We already have Russia–Turkey relations which is not a too long article. Geschichte (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This topic is notable, it's mentioned in a lot of news and there can be found google-schoolars articles... I suggest to look for several different keywords to find resources; Russian-Turkish Proxy Conflict, Russian-Turkish Proxy War, Russian-Turkish war in 2000's... Gundoganfa (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all of these "proxy conflict" articles (save for actual, notable, well-written ones, ex. Iran–Israel proxy conflict and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict) are little more than collections of infobox and timeline gore. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A misleading title that does not reflect reality. The article focuses too much on Syria and on the reactions of other parties to the “conflict.” The two countries share many reflections on many issues and there is commercial and diplomatic exchange between them. It will be correct to describe their relationship as merely a discord continuing since many decades and not just since 2012.--Sakiv (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If you want to delete this page then you would have to replace it with something else ,because whether you like it or not this is going on and is on par with the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict in scale. There are multiple proxies and hundreds of soldiers killed on both side. If you look at the all the conflict in the middle east and Caucasus you will see that Russian and turkey always support opposing sides. Armenia, the SAA, and HOR with Russia. Azerbaijan, the SNA, and GNA with turkey. They also use mercenaries like the Wagner Group and the Syrian National Army. Turkish drones have killed Russian mercenaries and Russian fighter jets have killed turkish soldiers. --Garmin21 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gundoganfa and Garmin21 BlueD954 (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there’s is a real conflict going on between Turkey and Russia, so if you want it to be deleted, it won’t, since there’s enough cute evidence. 75.168.222.162 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gundoganfa Śαǿturα^💬 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gundoganfa and Garmin21's arguments. Demoxica (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Russia–Turkey relations (very selectively); the article currently is a disgusting hive of WP:SYNTH (particularly in the infobox) and over-detailed descriptions of the conflict in Syria, but there are discussions of a proxy conflict in Libya [60]. I don't see a reason why the countries' relations can't be described in the article on their relations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There are plenty of sources in the article and found in WP:BEFORE. The article does need a lot of work, but it is a notable subject. // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it stands, it is outdated and misleading. Till it is recreated from scratch, the wiki is better without it. If it can be done promptly, good, but seeing as it sat mostly untouched for five years...Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Russia–Turkey relations. Really not a proxy conflict at all.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Shadow4dark (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamuguri higher secondary school[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. The article is about a school that sadly fails the GNG requirements, and also schools are not inherently notable to have a Wikipedia article. They need to pass the criteria mentioned at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which this one doesn't. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that Schools are not inherently notable but this is not a ordinary school this is a higher secondary school which is equivalent to a degree college in india their are few higher educational schools in Tezpur. And this school is famous and have enough reference to be in the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi568 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references in the article are primary and all I could find from a WP:BEFORE where about trivial topics. Like the principle dying. So, this doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or draftify Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amar Singh College. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JKIMS[edit]

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

An institution within a college, failing WP:GNG and other relevant criteria. I think redirect/merge to Amar Singh College would be helpful but currently the page has no better sources and merge won't be a good option. Comments? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The college appears to be covered by two or three well known newspapers of the area (added as references to the article in this edit). Sohom Datta (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom data, That's good that it exists, and it was setup in Amar Singh College but I do not see enough significant coverage in the sources that you have added in the article. Perhaps these would be helpful if there is a consensus in getting this article merged with Amar Singh College . Otherwise, these aren't helpful for this to remain as a stand-alone article. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

merge to Amar Singh College. This doesn't seem notable enough to have an article due to there only being local/trivial sources. I think what does exist on it is enough to warrant a merge though. Especially since the other article could use the content and extra references. As it is though, this is just a needless content fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amar Singh College: Article doesn't meet WP:N, but content would be useful in target. // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ZTE. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZTE Engage[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. BEFORE showed tertiary sources with promos, adverts, mentions and listings, but nothing that demonstrates WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZTE per WP:ATD-R. Found a CNET review but not significant coverage. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eurobank Ergasias. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurobank a.d.[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT (WP:NCORP). The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond routine run of the mill coverage, directory listings, etc. that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article Eurobank Ergasias per WP:ATD-R. See also Reuters short article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eurobank Ergasias. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Eurobank Ergasias. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus to delete all of these articles as failing the general notability guideline at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anahi Hormazabal[edit]

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

Winning a single beauty pageant does not have any inherent notability, as upheld in several recent AfDs on regional/national beauty pageant winners with no other notable biographical material. This is a single-source article which by all appearances is eligible for deletion under WP:BLP1E policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling the other one- or two-source beauty pageant contestant articles for the same reason (pageant website, Facebook, Instagram, globalbeauties.com, missosology, pageantopolis, and the like not considered as valid sources per WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these have sufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG.Shahoodu (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:BLP1E cases at best and most of the sourcing is primary or social media sites as mentioned Spiderone 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to List of tallest buildings in Fresno. technically wavering around 'soft delete', but there's a clear redirect target. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State County Plaza[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable office block that does not satisfy NBUILD and is not on any heritage listing Spiderone 10:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community Regional Medical Center[edit]

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

There is not WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT and does not meet the criteria for hospitals at WP:HOS essay.

WP:HOS states:

"Articles about hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard, which requires, as an absolute minimum:

that the hospital has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources
that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital)
that at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area."

There is routine, run of the mill local coverage / mentions / directory listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to trivial coverage as described above. Hun ter 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amarillo, Texas. Clear consensus not to retain as a standalone. Since some content has been merged to Amarillo, Texas, this must be redirected to retain attribution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Amarillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons. Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis do not constitute significant coverage. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Amarillo' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources Spiderone 15:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Spiderone, WP:MILL, WP:OR, and my standards. This is a unnecessary list of an ordinary, barely notable buildings that are not skyscrapers. Since there is a single source, in effect this is original research, which we have never published. I note that my standards are fairly lax, and this does not pass; not a single building listed is over 60 stories and this just doesn't make sense as a list. It's been a while since I've been to Amarillo (c. 1990), but it struck me as being flat. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amarillo, Texas. I've taken the liberty of copying the first five entries in the table to the main article. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy for this to merge and redirect to Amarillo, Texas Spiderone 17:46, 14 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 deleted under WP:A7 by Deb. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikson Daniel[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of GNG. He is an actor but doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR . He also is a journalist but satisfies no criterion from WP:JOURNALIST. He also appears to have won two non notable awards from non notable awards shows. A before search links mostly to primary unreliable sources such as social media pages Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no notability demonstrated whatsoever. Deb (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the sources cited in the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Purdy[edit]

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

This is not my field, but the subject appears to be primarily a musician, and clearly does not meet the relevant guidelines. Theonly reliable sourcesseemsto be a note in Variety DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the creator of the original article, but I think that this use of Vice as a source is reliable. From what I can see at WP:RSP, there is no consensus on Vice as a source, but for things outside of world politics and current events it is deemed reliable. I'd also like to point out that the articles in Nicki Swift and The Badger Herald (which in my opinion are both reasonably reliable) at least provide considerable sigcov. It should not be left out in this discussion that Purdy is also a Youtuber with 3M+ subscribers, which is nothing to scoff at even if it doesn't show traditional notability. AviationFreak💬 03:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree there's not much from a music angle but as a social media personality it meets General notability with requisite numbers of reliable cited sources. Re: Vice, yes it can be iffy and does make itself available for branding/promotional purposes so it's tough to make a blanket assessment of its reliability because a good percentage of what they put out is legit. IMO, VICE articles as sources should be gauged on a case by case basis, especially with musicians. This one is fairly in-depth by a staff writer, so it passes, IMO. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:59, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sore ga Bokura no Renai Seikatsu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I could not find any reliable sources in English or Japanese about this game. No notable adaptations. lullabying (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also did a search, and was unable to find any RS coverage in Japanese - only blogs, online stores and wikis. I was going to suggest redirecting it to the publisher or developer's articles, but it turns out the "opera house" and "alice blue" that are linked are the generic concepts, not the companies named after them...--Alexandra^IDV 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per notability concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "The Trump legal team's failed Four Seasons press conference, explained". Vox. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.

[2] "Which Four Seasons? Oh, not that one". The New York Times. 28 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.

[3] ttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/four-seasons-total-landscaping-trump-gardening-merchandise

[4] "From Obscure To Sold Out: The Story Of Four Seasons Total Landscaping In Just 4 Days". NPR. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]