Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 08 November 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest broadcasting towers in Atlanta[edit]

List of tallest broadcasting towers in Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plainly fails to meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and also WP:NBUILDING guidlines. The only source cited is blacklisted (or so I've been told). I favor deletion rather than trying to merge into some other related article (such as List of tallest buildings in Atlanta) but wanted to generate consensus rather than PROD'ing it. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: List of tallest buildings in Atlanta is a Featured List, albeit an old one from 2008. The concept of "tallest structures in Atlanta" is surely notable, and the page currently lists the tallest broadcasting tower as being taller than the tallest building, so I'm inclined to lean toward a merge. I'm having trouble sourcing the tower's height, though; the address listed for the tallest one is incorrect, but from Google Maps there does appear to be a broadcast tower at that entry's coordinates, which are different than the address. If the listed height ends up being incorrect, we could probably just delete. Otherwise, we'll want to merge to the buildings page, and perhaps send it to WP:FLRC if it does not appear up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. as long as city-data.com is the only source. This is not a reliable source for information, per their about page, Please note that a lot of content on our site is user-generated. Looking at the source, it seems as though someone has checked all of the towers and then listed what they determined to be the tallest, a violation of NOR. Not to mention that there is no indication of passing NLIST or GNG, the relevant guidelines. If there is a source verifying the heights of these towers and placing them in context of the list of tallest buildings in Atlanta, merge there. Otherwise, we have no choice but to delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eddie891's good reasoning; there is an unusual amount of over-information in Atlanta television and radio articles about individual communications transmitters that isn't found in any other market's articles, and this just adds to that pile of CRUFT. Nate • (chatter) 04:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if there is interest in checking a reliable source here it is https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrResults.jsp?searchType=TRL71.200.110.214 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Elmssuper 05:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we can verify the heights of the towers as the IP lists above, they cannot be presented as X tallest structure in Atlanta unless there is a reliable source saying that it is X tallest structure in Atlanta, which is where V and NOR concerns come in. And up to this point in the discussion, nobody has presented a source that does that-- and I cannot find one. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Also, @Elms, the link you left in your comment is an essay, an opinion, not a policy or guideline. Plus, as @skdb mentioned, this was a featured list. Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:54, 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 redirect to List of Hampden–Sydney Tigers football seasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team[edit]

2016 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division III football season where the team was not ranked in the Top 25 in that division and closed with a losing record of 3-7. While considerable effort has been put into the article, the sourcing is not independent and does contribute toward the GNG analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Redirect to List of Hampden–Sydney Tigers football seasons, where the final season record and some stuff like that is given. I found some local coverage from the Richmond area, but nothing that would pass the normal bar for D3 seasons. Seems to have mostly just gotten local attention. Hog Farm Bacon 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I have with redirecting is that it leaves a blue link in Template:Hampden–Sydney Tigers football navbox, creating the impression that an article exists, and likely encouraging an ambitious editor to fill in the remaining redlinks. Also, it makes it too easy for someone to recreate the article since the full text remains in the history. We simply should not have articles for ordinary DIII seasons (or in this case less than ordinary), and the appropriate result IMO remains deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 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. Redirecting isn't really suitable as it was a collaboration. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1001 Real Apes[edit]

1001 Real Apes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one of User:Soul Crusher's articles, although this one dates back to 2016, so it is older than their most recent binge. Of the sources in the article, the AllMusic entry is just a track listing, the Trouser piece doesn't mention this album, and the other source is just the album booklet. All of the sources I could turn up in a WP:BEFORE are unreliable. Since this is a split album, where both bands have articles, there's no good redirection target, so deletion is the best solution here. Hog Farm Bacon 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:48, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Chawan[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior appearances at fully-pro level BlameRuiner (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kerala Blasters vs ATK". Indian Super League. Retrieved 1 November 2020.
  2. ^ "SC East Bengal Squad". Indian Super League. Retrieved 1 November 2020.
  • Keep: Anil Chawan also made 3 appearances in the de-facto National Cup tournament 2019 Durand Cup (since Super Cup did not take place in 2019-20 season) for ATK. -SabyaC (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You can't vote three times like that. I have striked your comments for that. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, The above user is probably new and seems unaware of how to contribute to AfDs. He seems to have added "Keep" before his 3 bullet points, after looking at my vote. I suggest his comments be merged into one, rather than striking off. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He has been around since Feb 2017! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Since the player hasn't appeared in fully-pro league. Otherwise the article is in a good position. If the player appears, then can be moved back to mainspace.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify - does not meet the guidelines currently but could do soon so would recommend either deletion or draftifying Spiderone 14:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, Durand Cup reports seem to indicate he has featured in competitive matches involving two fully professional teams but not seeing that reflected in the discussion so might be mistaken.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - his article says that the Durand Cup appearance was for ATK Reserves And Academy, which is not a team in a WP:FPL, so playing for that team would not meet NFOOTBALL. Certainly Soccerway doesn't list it. More importantly, GNG is not met. FYI @Fenix down:. GiantSnowman 17:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:30, 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 redirect to List of Hampden–Sydney Tigers football seasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team[edit]

2015 Hampden–Sydney Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division III football season where the team was not ranked in the Top 25 in that division and closed with a mediocre 6–4. While considerable effort has been put into the article, the sourcing is not independent and does contribute toward the GNG analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the growing popularity of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, one concern I have with redirecting here is that it leaves a blue link in Template:Hampden–Sydney Tigers football navbox, creating the impression that an article exists, and likely encouraging an ambitious editor to fill in the remaining redlinks for 2017, 2018, 2019, etc. Also, a redirect makes it too easy for someone to recreate the article since the full text remains in the history. We simply should not have articles for ordinary DIII seasons like this, and the appropriate result IMO remains deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awonusi Abiodun[edit]

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

run of the mill business person, not notable, fails all the criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep User:Geschichte if it's based on his app creation time, he has been creating app since 2019, and that's plenty of time it's opinion on Geschicte though. Lynndonald (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Week keep This person runs podcast for a news website in Nigeria, and create apps which is on Google play. He might meet one of the criterias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedray (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on where you're seeing actual coverage, Bearian? I wouldn't call the app notable considering we just deleted it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some news articles but some appear to be a similarly named relative. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to google search too, I wanted to know what sources specifically you are referring to, because none of those in the news search or in the article are remotely reliable and in fact almost none of those showing in gnews are even about him.Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ref 1 is written by him, ref 2 is a blog, ref 3 is a link to his podcast, ref 4 is painfully brief, ref 5 is a link to download his app, ref 6 is written by him. I'm not seeing any independent coverage or WP:SIGCOV whatsoever Spiderone 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nom & by source analysis above by Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Struck out sock !votes by both Lynndonald & Joedray per this SPI findings. Celestina007 (talk) 10:31, 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. I think the argument about UNDUE weight is persuasive enough not to close as merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Gaedele[edit]

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

Baseball player who never made it past the AA level (and even at the AA level, he only played 67 games) His great uncle Eddie Gaedel is quite famous in the baseball world as the smallest player ever to appear in a Major League Baseball game. (If you don't know the story, the article is a fun read) But of course, notability is not inherited and Kyle Gaedele does not meet the requirements of WP:NBASE. Pichpich (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBASE. Smattering of the traditional minor league baseball player coverage, but no indication that he's notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider the possibility of a merge but I feel that the paragraph about Kyle Gaedele in the Eddie Gaedel article is giving him undue importance. It's a fairly random connection. After all Eddie was never a true baseball player so using a baseball connection with his grandnephew is like connecting, say, a notable opera singer with a grandnephew who is a non-notable football player.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clark County School District schools[edit]

List of Clark County School District schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, such as, in this case, WP:MILL schools. Sandstein 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep individual schools may not warrant articles, but the school district with all its schools probably does. looking at the WP:NOTDIR, this list does not meet any of the criteria there .The items are connected; not a genealogy, not lists of phone numbers as in white or yellow pages, not a program or event guide, not a catalog, not an intersection to make an artificial listing, and it has context and information about each entry. So WP:NOTDIR is no reason to delete this. Perhaps it could be merged to Clark County School District. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’ve worked hard to make this page as accurate as possible. It is fun adding information to schools that don’t get as much positive and or public recognition as they do (eg Thurman White Middle School). CCSD is also one of the largest school districts in the US, so it’s important to display its hundreds of schools in one page. Shon-Shon3 02:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - if this exemplary list falls foul of WP:SOMETHINGorOTHER, then the 'rule' is an idiot. Oculi (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Clark County School District. Justifiable as a WP:SPLIT or per WP:LISTPURP as an informational list with clearly relevant information to that parent school district topic. Numerous listed schools also have their own articles. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A legitimate application of WP:SPLIT. A table of this kind is exactly what I'd expect and want to see in a well developed article about a school district. The table succintly summarizes essential school info and is not excessively detailed. In this case, because of the number of schools in the district, the table is quite long and would oveverwhelm the parent article, so splitting it away is a perfectly reasonable solution. Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clark County School District. While I agree that this is something people expect to see, that means it should be in it's current form and there is zero reason to have a separate list or for this then the one about the school district. Especially since the vast majority of entries are un-referenced or do not have articles. Only the high schools do and that's enough to warrant a list article IMO. My guess is that a lot of those high school articles will likely be deleted in the future anyway, but even if they aren't, they can be included in Clark County School District without all the other unnecessary entries that aren't notable and likely no one cares about. For instance adult education centers. Wikipedia isn't a directory and no list is meant to be exhaustive. Like is it worth listing elementary schools that opened two years ago anywhere? Probably not. In no way is creating a separate list just so you can a legitimate WP:SPLIT case. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were a CSD I would say something along the lines of rename to "List of schools in Clark County, Nevada" (changing the inclusion criteria) since the school district itself is probably a bit too specific, but it's a valid list per WP:LISTN/WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A reasonable split from Clark County School District. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for navigation purposes, the above discussion, and WP:IAR. With all due respect, this comes at a terrible time when the recent movement has been to redirect individual schools in the Las Vegas area to here. Deleting the target of all those redirects wrecks havoc - and invites vandalism and grief. I tend to ignore all the rules when the best possible outcome is a single target for a bunch of cruft and stuff. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 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 Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilation (video game)[edit]

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

The article lacks WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON ~ Amkgp 💬 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be non-notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to be a small amount of local media coverage, basically all focusing on the novelty of a game being produced in Bangladesh. [1][2] Still, I think any game article whose only source is a link to a Steam page should probably be deleted as PROMO. ApLundell (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video game will be released in the next month. I thought there should be an article on wikipedia about the game as there is one for many similar video games. And the steam page was cited as a reliable source for the release date and not for promotional perposes. Syfur007 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on notability here yet. But if the article is WP:TOOSOON, I honestly think it should just be moved to draftspace. It was nominated for deletion the day it was moved from draftspace to articlespace - I don't see a compelling reason for deletion when there is an easy and simple alternative. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonchain[edit]

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

exclusively bad sourcing, these do not establish notability. mostly churnalism. The most reputable are also not sufficient: The Forbes source is written by staff, but it is a list of 50 different projects, with just a single sentence for each of them. There is no original research, that can't have been the case if the "article" covers 50 projects. The Fortune article is not primarily covering Dragonchain, it is just a shout-out; and there is no citable info, the blurb does not establish notability. The Bloomberg source is a reprint from BusinessWire, which is simply printing whatever companies would like them to. This is not considered a reliable source elsewhere, we have had many examples of this. The article implies that it is written by Vision Tree Media which seems to have been contracted to do various PR projects for Dragonchain. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The recreation after the previous AFD was literally the same text, and should really have been deleted immediately, or never been created. The current version is much longer, but is of no more substance - this is ridiculously promotional, and the scanty RS coverage is passing mentions at best. WP:BEFORE shows press releases, stuff from their ICO, and passing mentions. If this is kept, it would need to be cut to about two lines - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In agreement that the page needs work. Disagreed on 'exclusively' bad sourcing, however the unreliable sources mentioned can and should be removed at any time rather than deleting an entire page. Disagreed that the page content is the same as the previous AFD. The previous AFD was a terrible piece focused on token shilling and price speculation. Per Wikipedia's Alternatives to Deletion policies; If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. David Gerard seems to be in agreement that the page can be kept, though we are not in agreement that it would need to be 'cut to about two lines'. Ysangkok seems to be in agreement there are sources that should be removed, though not every source referenced in the page can be disputed like that and claims made towards Vision Tree are speculative. As far as I know Vision Tree is the producer of the documentary that aired on Discovery Science Channel, but I am not opposed to removing inappropriate references or sources from the page. Suggest to further discuss in the talk page, make edits where needed, and if that doesn't work, to follow the normal protocol we have available at dispute resolution. Last but not least, to anyone following the Dragonchain page, my strong advice is to improve that page to meet the Wikipedia standards and to address the valid concerns expressed here. JeffreyDutch (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think that's a "keep" from me, then you are not good at judging the opinions of other editors, to a degree that you should probably stop trying to. Do you have RSes that meet WP:NCORP for the article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • e.g., you just claimed that a report that says on the cover it's from Accenture is not from Accenture - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article can be improved, no debate there from my end. Accenture is not involved or mentioned anywhere in the World Economic Forum report. The World Economic Forum collaborated with Deloitte, but it certainly is not a marketing document from Accenture. The report is the result of more than 200 expert interviews and nine international workshops over the past year as part of the Forum’s AI in Financial Services project. JeffreyDutch (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JeffreyDutch:, you just added a reference to a piece on The Next Web which only mentions Dragonchain in the quote "The user uploaded the tweet and its URL to Dragonchain, a web app that claims to timestamp tweets to blockchains such as Ethereum. The tweet can be viewed on the blockchain here.". That is not independent journalism, it is just a shoutout. It is unusable as a reference. The author even distanced themselves from the fact that Dragonchain actually timestamped anything by using "claims"! --Ysangkok (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ysangkok: Reverted the reference from The Next Web per your feedback. JeffreyDutch (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because open sourced from the Walt Disney Company. Regarding Open Source Money, that 5-episode long documentary already aired on Discovery Science Channel in the United States, unclear to me why some notable sources have been removed and now only a press release from Raiinmaker(?) is left? JeffreyDutch (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horrible article. Maybe after TNT rewrite using only high quality RSs (if available) I may change my mind, but the article in its current state is not suitable for an encyclopedia (fails GNG, ad-like language, inline external promo links etc.). Pavlor (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel this one is notable. It has coverage in Inc, Yahoo and number of other publications. I agree that there are lot's of content that is unsourced and the article needs some work. I also see some press releases used. I am considering removing most sections that are unsourced, but need to review and research further. However, I also feel it's relation to Disney and how it started out by them, makes it notable as well.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Expertwikiguy: Notability is not established based on whether you think the subject was funded by a company you consider significant. Your comment doesn't address the issue of bad sourcing. Just because sources were funded by Disney doesn't mean they are well-researched or in-depth. I refer to CORPDEPTH linked by David Gerard above. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Improve The subject is clearly notable for all the reasons mentioned above. Blockchain technology is world-changing technology that is going to continually evolve. While it's in its infancy still, with few among the general public well-informed (or informed at all) on the topic, this will change quickly. Many fortune 100 companies are heavily invested in blockchain technology with many different coins and platforms right now. The fact that this was started by Disney is a strong nod to notability. While there is likely to be a consolidation of blockchain platforms and associated coins in the future, the individual unique platforms are laying the groundwork now, and are therefore notable and important. I don't feel that this violates GNG or is ad-like in nature. While the citations are not written in the proper format, that is easily fixable.K67 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited. Blockchain is notable, so we have an article on blockchain; but that doesn't mean something else is notable because it's a blockchain. Your reasoning is not policy-based. How does the article meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Once you get past the horrible sources, bad unsourced writing, and hyperbolic stuff about blockchain technology being "world-changing" (which might or might not be true, but it doesn't automatically mean this implementation of it is anyway), then all your left with is a pretty routine article about yet another run of the mill blockchain thing, that is essentially no different the article that was already delete. So, there's zero reason to keep this. The claim that this is somehow drastically different enough to justify recreation is ridiculous. It just uses way buzz words then the original article. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done major cleanup on this article, probably over 25% unsourced content removed, so it looks much better now. Removed press releases and self sourced material. And also found 3 new sources in Business Insider, Nasdaq.com and siliconangel.com. Also, note that2 of the new sources that I found is about their TV documentary. All past voters, should revisit their votes.Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "NASDAQ" article is a CoinDesk reprint, and it's still generally unreliable even if reprinted. I see there's also a Medium post from "Crypto Dragon" being used as a source. This is not a competent approach to referencing a Wikipedia article. Having looked at the changes, delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As @Katine67: pointed out, these minor things are easily fixable and it seems there has been made a lot more edits and removal of notable content meeting WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH already than I personally would agree with. JeffreyDutch (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons above and clean-up done by Expertwikiguy. Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: "Keep per reasons above" is something you can paste all over AfD's that have at least one Keep vote. You claim it is good enough to pass NCORP, but why? What makes it pass NCORP? Your arguments are applicable to any AfD concerning a corporation, they do not show you did any effort. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Opinions without reasoning aren't opinions. This is not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't reply to rebuttals like this, but this honestly got me triggered. First, I KNOW that this is not a ballot. Second, there are some users in certain AfDs who say Delete: per nom and Keep: per above or certain user because, IMV, they agree with or have the same views as either of them. IMO, I'm satisfied with Expertwikiguy's improvement on the article and I agree with his, JeffreyDutch's and K67's arguments. That's why my keep stands. Therefore, there's really nothing wrong with agreeing with someone's views on why a certain article should be kept, deleted or merge. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Superastig: Even Expertwikiguy removed way more than needed, if anything there is stuff to recover, definitely not delete. JeffreyDutch (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An examination of the references (ignoring the primary sources and clearly marked Business Wire announcements) shows the following:
    • This from Business Insider discusses how Disney originally developed the technology and how some of their developers are looking for funding to continue. A reading of the article makes it clear that it is based on an interview with Joe Roets, the CEO of Dragonchain Inc. As per WP:ORGIND, a reference must have "Independent Content" which is defined as follows: [need quotation to verify]. There is nothing in the article that is clearly unattributable to company sources, fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Inc.com] from 2017 says that the author interviews Roets from the article. This article also fall short of "Independent Content". Facts/opinions/analysis/etc on the topic company are invariably attributed to company sources. This article also fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Orlando Politics (assuming it is a reliable source) is a mention-in-passing with a quotation from the CEO with no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • This from BizJournals is also a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH
    • Thie from InfoWorld from 2016 makes no mention of the topic company but provides a description of the blockchain technology (which is not the topic of the article here at AfD). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • This from GeekWire discusses the company's business three core business arms and the future of the company and is based on a talk and information provided by the CEO. While it contains good details, it is clear that all of the information on the company was provided by the CEO and there is no evidence of "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Enterprise Times is entirely based on a company announcement even including word-for-word some descriptions and quotes, fails ORGIND.
    • This from 425Business is an announcement of a local award (Eastside Small Business of the Year) and relies entirely on information/interview provided by company sources, fails ORGIND
    • This from SeattleBusiness "Tech Impact" awards lists the company as an award winner. It is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The award is not a major award and does not confer automatic notability.
    • This from Silicon Angle discusses a documentary series which will follow the CEO/founder of the company (and other entrepreneurs) who have faced resistence from regulators to Blockchain technology. The article provides no details on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This also from Silicon Angle is entirely based on this PR company announcement, fails ORGIND
I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability wise (and just logically anyway) this is all over the place. The argument that it is notable because it was created by Disney seems even more tenuous given the (unverifiable) claim in the intro that Dragonchain is no longer associated with Disney. If Disney, of all conglomerates, allegedly gave up total control of the project, that would make it even less than non-notable in my mind. The other, more important thing, is Dragonchain even a blockchain? I'd like verifiable sources on that fact first, some of the statements in the article and in the dubious source material is totally contradictory to the basic principles of blockchain tech. "Each application or node is its own blockchain." Yeah, ok. By that logic my thermostat is its own blockchain. From Inc.com source : "...we are able to leverage AWS for scale." That sounds very not-blockchain to me. Lastly, why is Dragonchain listed in the cryptocurrency template as an ERC-20 token? If its notability peaks at having an Ethereum token... clearly delete. My point is, it's not clear whether Dragonchain is really a "blockchain" or just a data center with extra steps, so saying the article is notable because it is blockchain also needs verifiable sources to be backed up. On top of that the tone jumps out as a desperate sales pitch. hidden lemon (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing. A lot of hype sourced to press releases, but no substantial independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP as well as WP:ORGIND (#Independent sources) and WP:CORPDEPTH (#Significant coverage). Notability is not not inherited so attempts to tie this to Disney for notability is vain and fails WP:INHERITORG. What I do see is promotionism not only on this non-mined cryptocurrency but as a whole in some attempt to list all 1600+ cryptocurrencies on Wikipedia as being notable simply because they exist with mostly primary sources and some passing mention in reliable sources. Where is the bottom limit on notability? This is established GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I do not see that criteria being met. Otr500 (talk) 12:02, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FC Dunav Ruse season[edit]

2011–12 FC Dunav Ruse season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls outside the scope of WP:NSEASONS and no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 21:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This completly fails WP:GNG as I don't think their woul be any national sources for this fifth division, probably only local at best. HawkAussie (talk) 00:13, 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Craft[edit]

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

Came here from the WikiProject page. Craft fails WP:GNG, WP:GRIDIRON and WP:ACTOR. The only significant coverage I could find on his college career was about a suspension having to do with a crime he committed, he never played in the NFL, "Mitch Craft" "Rattlers" brings up no results in a non-Google search, and I also cannot find any coverage of his acting career, which IMDB notes has been mostly uncredited roles to this point. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he never appeared in a regular season game in one of the designated leagues. Further, the significant coverage I found relates to his suspension for an incident that occurred when he was a 20-year-old college student. E.g. this and this.For these reasons the article raises a WP:BLP1E concern. I also agree with the nom on the uncredited acting roles. Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable athlete, and his offense was fairly minor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seen articles and/or figures on wiki with less credentials and by far less notable for sure. I can actually find many articles on google on this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABeeez (talk • contribs) — ABeeez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@ABeeez: If you have significant coverage of Craft from reliable, independent sources, please present it. Folks may change their mind if there is such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The ABeez account was created after this AfD was opened and its first edit was to vote "Keep" on this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DSchemer: If you believe the Shutt and Crawford should also be deleted, feel free to nominate them. However, the existence of those articles is not a valid reason to keep this one. See WP:Other stuff exists. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The DSchemer account was created after this AfD was opened and six of its first seven edits related to this article and AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Checkuser note: ABeeez and DSchemer are confirmed to be the same user per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ABeeez. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 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 keep. Consensus has been trending towards keeping the article Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Ashby[edit]

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

The only source on the article is the webpage of the organization he was head of. Beyond that, this is a church with less than 2,000 members. The fact it is a multi-congregation church does not change the fact that it is very small. There is nothing to show this guy is notable, and if we consistently made everybody who was a religious leader with the amount of organization under him and impact this guy had notable, we would probably at least double the size of Wikipedia creating articles on very low profile religious leaders. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where an article about the head of a diocese of a major denomination was removed... normally we keep these. It's a stub, but an appropriate one. A lack of online sources doesn't surprise me. I'd say either WP:IMPACT would suffice. BTW-the current membership is reported around 2,000 members, but the Episcopal Church membership may show a different amount for 1981 to 1995--it looks like the denomination in general has lost membership since then. --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • verrifiability means you need to find the sources, not baldly assert that they exist in the face of a lack of such. Keeping this article is absurd considering how small this diocese is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We just plain cannot keep articles sourced only to the website of a church organization a person was a leader of. If the "all bishops are default notable" standard leads to that, it needs to be scrapped. Such notability standards are not supposed to justify keeping articles that lack any 3rd-party coverage. Note that I did not even have to speficy reliable or indepth third party coverage, we have just plain none here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I'm going to go with the policy ignore all rules and say that keeping this article makes Wikipedia better. The fact that it is difficult to find online news sources for someone from this time period is not surprising and insisting that it be accomplished during an AFD is unnecessary. When we have the time to complete such research, those who have the ability come up with the coverage you request. Until then, there is no reason to believe that there is any bad faith in the existence of the article and no reason to believe the information is not correct. Deleting the article just means that it will be put back later and seems disruptive to the process.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not made better by this article. It is just made into a mirror of the diocesan website, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Episcopal Diocese of Western Kansas#List of bishops of Western Kansas. All of the what little info there is, except his birth and death year, is repeated there, and redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record we lack an article on the current bishop of this diocese. Also, the 2016 membership for the diocese was 1426. 2000 is a far too generous over estimation of the membership. It would have had to decline very steeply of late to be anywhere near a number that is impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always held diocesan bishops of major denomination to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you argue to keep in the face of absolutely no sourcing that is at all independent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easily. He's an Anglican bishop! Common sense decrees that we keep Anglican (and Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc) bishops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it does not. Wikipedia is built on verifiability. That means sourcing to show someone is notable beyond the organization they were a part of. The only source in this article is from the organization he was head of. which as I mentioned has under 2000 members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally don't agree that bishops SHOULD be considered notable. Archbishops yes. But they *are* considered notable. It would be nice if someone would just find an article or two on the man so we could at least pretend he meets some reliable secondary etc requirement. Wikipedia should not just mirror a website and serve as a directory. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could just argue that there is a resasonably large minimum for archdiocese size. Consider that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dodge City that covers the same area has 60,000 Catholics in it. There are a few dioceses with over 1 million members. Treating all bishops as if they are the same makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Treating all time periods as if they were the same also makes no sense. The Episcopal Church has gone through changes in membership size during the time period from when this individual served to today.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The changes are not large enough that this truly dinky diocese was anything than truly minor and insignifcant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's beyond clear that you don't like it and the lack of civility through your name-calling against the organization clearly indicates that. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. This source reports membership at the national level dropping from 2.5 million in 1980 to 1.6 million in 2019. It's reasonable to assert that similar trends likely occurred in this geogrpahic area.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which would at most give us 4000 members in the diocese. That is still not the size of an organization that justifies having an article. This is purlely about our policy being against having article that are sourced only to the internal website of an organization someone is a part of. This is consistently against the policy for creating an article on any individual. There is no special pleading on my part here. There are still no independent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • John Pack Lambert, you raise some good points. I think bishops should have to meet some level of citation requirement. If you ever seek to get the policy reviewed or changed, I'd certainly support it and have some thoughts I'd like to add. Won't say more here because I've digressed enough from Ashby already. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject notabilty guidelines are meant to suggest that certain topics are generally notable. They are not meant to force a keep of an article sourced in a way that is totally and completely not independent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the comments above are misleading. It is not that there are few online sources. It is that no one has identified anywhere any source other than the website of the organization this person was the head of. To keep this article would be a basic violation of the principles of verifiability. If those wanting to keep could state any independent, 3rd party source that had ever said anything about Ashby we could consider keeping the article. They have shown no eivdence that such sources exist at all, anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with the new sources I still think this article should be deleted. They are very short passing mentions in a local paper. I have seen many religious leaders with more substantial mentions in the news leading organizations over 100 times as big as this diocese have articles on them deleted. The sourcing here is still not enough to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Redirect per Clarityfiend and per the subject-specific notability guideline, which includes: "[M]ore than just a church record of a Bishop existing is required to establish notability." Newspaper coverage establishes his existence, but not his notability. Secondary sourcing of Ashby is scant, weak, and from a single independent publication (I am the one who searched for and added them in the interest of showing that I did look into Ashby before voting--there isn't so much as an interview or a profile of him.). The coverage establishes very little other than his existence in the office--one is barely more than a name check. Consider that I am generally a pretty liberal inclusionist, but not when it comes to making Wikipedia a directory of mainline religious hierarchical office holders for the history of time. Not without sourcing. I hold no prejudice against spinning out an article if an interested historian is able to dig up some good resources to which I have no access and with which I'd be unfamiliar. Happy to change my vote if someone digs into the Episcopalian history and is able to find coverage of Ashby. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note about my prev statement: I was under the impression that bishops were considered notable by Wikipedia standards until the past few days. I was incorrect. That's an essay specific to the Catholic WikiProject. It is not policy. So votes to keep per NBISHOP, which is about an essay rather than policy and for a different religious body altogether = not solid. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep per improvements made by Genericusername57. There is just enough in coverage and in variety of sources to cut it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:CCC. Bishops of a major denomination are almost always notable, and have generally been kept here. The consensus has been upheld this year. If necessary, please userfy to my user space, as I have experience fact-checking and finding sources for such articles. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NBISHOP.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good time to set a precedent that this website won't discriminate between members of different religions.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a ludicrous view. Different bishops are different. Catholic Bishops are in general leading organization which are at least 10 times as big as Episcopal Bishops, so treating them as if they are the same makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, Anglican dioceses are generally considerably larger than Catholic dioceses, so this is not a worldwide view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got to wonder what the Episcopal population in Kansas is. Pew has it as 1% of the population of Kansas 1. That's got to be more recent and perhaps a bit different from what it was in Ashby's time, with mainline bodies typically losing members in recent years. FWIW, Catholic is 18% in Kansas. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is all about discrimination in the academic sense of the word. (Though this is not the place, I suppose the bishops of the various hierarchical mainline Protestant denominations could be viewed the same as the hierarchical Roman Catholic church, though I really don't know that a bishop in one = a bishop in another). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He does not meet the general notability guideline. Two sources from the same publication count as one. One of those pieces isn't significant coverage anyway. His employer's piece on him cannot be considered independent coverage. Biographical topics that don't qualify for specific notability guidelines should meet WP:GNG. For all the keep votes here, it seems I'm the only one who looked for/found anything since the AfD started. Someone else look now and make us look fools--make us want to change our votes. Until then, no reason to keep this as a standalone article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if there are not three bios of him in print out there somewhere. Here is one:[3] from The Living Church. Possibly an offline search of various Western Kanasas periodicals would do it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There's no content here other than his birth/death date that isn't on the diocese page, if there's no further detail we should just put that on the list and redirect. [4] is a slightly more thorough obituary, but I don't see much else (and The Living Church is an Episcopal publication that isn't independent). I'm hesitant to overturn precedent at WP:CLERGY (Common outcomes) without wider discussion - language of "may be notable" was added in 2011 [5] and was changed to "usually notable" in 2013 [6]. If there is consensus not to keep, a follow-up discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - other pages such as Rustin R. Kimsey would also likely be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd be very reluctant for us to start removing whole classes of articles--I think rather we should simplify AfD by increasing the number of types of things we do accept as presumably notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Vincenti[edit]

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

A biographical article on a person that does not appear to meet WP:GNG; no indication of significance or importance.

PROD was an article on a referee with no assertion or evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG

DePROD reason deprod - may be notable for refeering at world cup

Worth further discussion. A WP:BEFORE search revealed:

  • [7] - No results from ProQuest
  • [8] - passing mention
  • [9] - passing mention
  • [10] - passing mention

The French language article is even more brief than this one. Spiderone 20:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:13, 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) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013 PSIS Semarang season[edit]

2013 PSIS Semarang season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any inclusion criteria; not within the scope of WP:NSEASONS since it's the second tier of Indonesian football and no sign of WP:GNG being met. Spiderone 19:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 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) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Pro Duta FC season[edit]

2014 Pro Duta FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second-tier semi-pro league so doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NSEASONS; no evidence of WP:GNG either Spiderone 19:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okeano[edit]

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

The article is sourced only from the company's own website. A search does not reveal any independent coverage, significant or otherwise. What keeps this article from being straightforwardly promotional is that it doesn't reek of the normal puff language, though NPOV is still not adhered to. Overall, the source situation makes it a WP:GNG and WP:NWEB fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable startup. The coverage I can find is all in blogs, forums, or appears to be paid for, so this seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Hog Farm Bacon 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation - Potential. I've been an avid user of Okeano and have no current affiliation. I just wanted to create the WIki page for it since it seems like a notable idea. I think incubating it would allow others to edit it and contribute if new information becomes available, such as for example interviews with Okeano's founder or features in blogs or online magazines. User:Pisatel88 10 November 2020
  • Delete: An article on a recent start-up; searches find various postings but I am seeing nothing which would demonstrate attained WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB notability. (Regarding the Incubation suggestion above, it is worth noting that "interviews with Okeano's founder or features in blogs", as and when these occur, would not be sufficient here. Maybe copy to the creator's userspace if they feel this may in future attain notability?) AllyD (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabomania[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. 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 WP:ROUTINE, run of the mill type coverage, nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I would say merge/redirect but I'm not convinced that any of the content is worth retaining and it doesn't appear to be a likely search term either Spiderone 20:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable; of the three references, one is FB, another doesn't work. I would have said merge to Persikabo 1973, but not without proper sources, obvs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Villa Osorio[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the biggest problem with this article is that it duplicates almost entirely the existing Dromayor article, and almost nothing in this article contains any biographical detail about Mr. Villa Osorio himself, it's mostly about the company. Most of the sources either don't mention the subject, or make brief passing mentions, such as "he founded Dromayor in 1948" or that his family invested in the local football team. The genealogy source isn't acceptable on Wikipedia as it's user-generated and edited. The only source with any in-depth detail is the article in the newsletter of his local chamber of commerce. It also includes all the mentions of his birth date, year he founded Dromayor, his marriage and family, investments in construction and founding the Club de Comercio in his home city, so all the other sources mentioning these items are redundant and are just being used to pad out the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent analysis of the references. scope_creepTalk 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As i had noted also on dromayor. I do know there are more references in print but the public libraries in colombia are currently closed because of the virus. So when i can access that i will list them. Also it would have been better to merge the 2 pages, (dromayor and hector villa) like richard had sugested. But ill build on this one once i have more references. Best regards. Edit elefant. November 1st 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:26, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Coyle[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayron Schramm[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU and Germany are not a High Performance Union), only brief mentions and news of him joining/leaving sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharks are a Super Rugby team, which falls under criterion 2 - how is this not notable? Gbawden (talk)
Gbawden, has never represented the Sharks in a notable competition. Has only represented the Sharks in the Vodacom Cup and Provincial Cup. Only appearances for the Sharks in Super Rugby and Currie Cup would make him notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails our notability guidelines for rugby players. Just being on a team does not make one notable, you have to compete in a competition that fits the notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:NRU and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't represented Sharks in a competition that would allow an NRU pass Spiderone 19:36, 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) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Gaffney (rugby union)[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 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) 08:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Barton[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Joseph[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 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) 07:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo de Achaval[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derrek Van Klein[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Moala[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maka Tameilau[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Elkins[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so no significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matias Cima[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU and no appearances in the tournament anyway), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so no significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kunkel[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news on him joining sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 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 speedy keep. It's WP:SNOWing on this one. Potential moves and disputes about the content of the article should be addressed using the usual processes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud[edit]

Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trump's "fraud" claims have been widely dismissed, we should not be lending credence to this conspiratorial nonsense; which is what this article does essentially. What Republican politicians think about WP:FRINGE nonsense should not explored in a Wikipedia article, doing so is ultimately WP:OR. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my issue with the article is not that it is on a fringe topic, because WP:FRINGE does not mandate the deletion of articles, only placing them in context (as I attempted to do by adding a couple of sentences in the lead about Trump's claims being false). My issue is the false dichotomy of "Denounced" or "Supported", a big BLP issue as we are taking Republicans' comments out of context by pigeonholing them into such categories. For instance, we categorise Ben Sasse as "denouncing" Trump by saying: "If the president's legal team has real evidence, they need to present it immediately". No doubt Sasse chose these words carefully to avoid either supporting or denouncing Trump.
    Rather, I believe such a topic may be notable—it's not recentism to believe that a U.S. party's reaction to their president engaging in the fascist tactic of falsely denouncing a fair election result will be of historical importance—but it should absolutely not categorise comments in a binary way, instead presenting short quotes or representative samples of reactions from high-profile Republicans. The day-by-day summary section, while a bit unfocused, incomplete and a work in progress, is the better part of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair points, but if you have this article, someone could just as easily write a Democratic reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, or Rupert Murdoch's/Fox News' reaction to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud etc. aren't they just a notable in the above context? What i mean really is, are any such articles actually necessary? Personally, I don't think so Acousmana (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: I have already addressed the reason for focusing on the Republican Party on Talk:Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud#Notability. There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that begin with '[Adjective] reaction/response to [event]'; it's an established category to which this article is just another addition. All major U.S. quality news networks – pretty much all of which I have used for writing this article – have identified this split inside the GOP (often explicitly in the title of their articles or video reports) over whether their nominee's electoral fraud claims have any merit or not, and what the wider effect of making these repeated baseless claims is on society and the electoral democratic process. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a "category" and you mention list articles predominately. Not convinced cataloging reactions of politicians to one or other thing is what we should be doing. Acousmana (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If 'cataloging reactions of politicians to one or other thing' is not 'what we should be doing', why do we have articles such as, say, International reaction to the 2008 Zimbabwean presidential election, which is exactly that, and which we have been doing on English Wikipedia for over a decade? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zimbabwe example doesn't feature a "Denounced" or "Supported" listing such as you have introduced. Acousmana (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Sorry if I've not been clear when I used the word 'category'; I didn't mean a category on Wikipedia, I meant a set of related items in general, in this case a set of statements made by members of a party about an event. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I didn't write this article in order to 'lend credence to this conspiratorial nonsense'; quite obviously that would violate WP:FRINGE. I'm not talking about the allegations themselves, I'm talking about the reactions of fellow Republican Party members towards the claims made by their 2020 presidential nominee. Moreover, the article says explicitly in many places that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud and that Biden won the election, and almost all sources cited explicitly say that as well; I've selected all my sources very carefully and I deleted any unreliable sources such as Twitter, Fox News and NY Post. This article is about whether Republican Party members go along or do not go along with Trump's claims, and whether he should concede defeat or not. Bilorv has a point that it may sometimes be difficult to put some people in one camp or the other; MitchMcConnell was removed from supporters and Melania Trump and Jared Kushner from denouncers for that reason, because their positions are more nuanced, and I have explained them in the Background section. Nevertheless, I maintain that there are two pretty distinguishable camps inside the GOP right now, as quality news agencies have demonstrated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but isn't the act of cataloging "reactions of fellow Republican Party members," and then framing it the way you have, essentially WP:OR? Acousmana (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I'm not the one doing the framing, it's the U.S. major quality news networks (and some foreign such as The Guardian and BBC) who have framed this as a conflict inside the Republican Party about their presidential nominee's claims that is being fought out in the open. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
setting out a "false dichotomy of "Denounced" or "Supported"" (per Bilorv above) is very much you imposing a frame. Acousmana (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think there is a potentially a biased reason or a misunderstanding of original research for why this would be deleted. It is a very interesting topic which has been widely reported in the media. Plus it now includes all reactions (denounce and support). Definitely against deleting. Just Piping In (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no bias, but there very clear WP:SYN issues (tons of Wikipedia have similar problem, someone picks a random topic, with a name of their choosing, no discussion on its merits or notability, they impose their own frame, and string a bunch of refs together, that's what Wikipedia is now, plenty of examples). Acousmana (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should be reframed as an article about Trump's allegations of voter fraud. Trump's allegations of voter fraud in the election is a notable topic. Even "fringe" topics or conspiracies can be notable if they have heavy media coverage. However, the listing of Republicans that support or oppose his claims is not notable and is more WP:OR or WP:SYN. Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, if the "fraud" matter has to be covered in the encyclopedia, focusing on that rather than noting how one or other Republican politician reacted is a better idea. But what would the title be?Acousmana (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea, mostly for navigational reasons. As I said below, I think that merging it to more general articles or by expanding it with reactions from other groups would quickly make it Template:Very long. I suggest creating separate articles for other aspects of Trump's claims; this article is already quite substantial and I expect it to grow in the coming weeks. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when the entire Republican party (certainly not inevitably) accepts the results in a couple months? This article would be reduced to "The Republican party abandoned Donald Trump after he falsely alleged fraud in the 2020 election". Dylanvt (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I for one agree with this view. Dylanvt (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move with a broader scope. An article about "Donald Trump's challenge to the results of the 2020 United States Presidential election" (or something along those lines) would be appropriate. Such an article would naturally encompass reactions and responses by various parties, including the Biden camp, Republicans, courts, and media outlets. However, this article is framed too narrowly and, arguably, creates a non-neutral aspect by focusing only on Republican reactions. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will be notable for many years on how we determine the transfer of power. It does not 'lend credence to this conspiratorial nonsense' but rather preserves this story in our encyclopedia. We are not an opinion piece. The other merge suggestions make a very long article that will be hard to search.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As I've indicated on the talk page, it's fine for others to write an article about the fraud claims themselves, or about how Democrats, or foreign politicians, or election experts etc. have reacted / are reacting to the fraud claims. But if we all merge that together into one big article, it will likely soon get a Template:Very long. If 'Republican reactions' is somehow too specific, despite being a clearly established phenomenon in reliable sources, then I would like to know why we do have dozens of articles titled 'International/National/Domestic/Media reactions/responses to [event]' in Category:Reactions to 2010s events, why it's fine to have articles in the Category:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that start with the adjectives 'Medical', 'Military', 'Political' and 'Scientific and technical', and why we do have Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008, Democratic response to 2006 State of the Union address, List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, and List of former Trump administration officials who endorsed Joe Biden. Per WP:OTHER, we should review the legitimacy of those articles as well then. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually a very interesting topic and one that is definitely notable. Keeping a record of what the Republicans’ reaction to this election was is not a bad idea, since a fraction of the party members have supported Trump. But I would suggest expanding it to include reactions by Democrats, courts and election campaigns to make it neutral. That way it would sound less like a conspiracy. I would have suggested merging it to the main article but it's perhaps too long to be included there as a subsection. Keivan.fTalk 19:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing with the notability. In my response to Akrasia25 above, I said that I think that merging it to more general articles or by expanding it with reactions from other groups would quickly make it Template:Very long. I suggest creating separate articles for other aspects of Trump's claims; this article is already quite substantial and I expect it to grow in the coming weeks. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article makes clear that Trump's claims are false, it should stay. While a conspiracy theory like this would usually be too fringe to have a wiki article, when it is being espoused by the president I believe it becomes notable enough. I also expect this situation to develop as inauguration day approaches. Colin dm (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everywhere in the article, from the intro above to the sources below, it states that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence at all of large-scale electoral fraud. Only those Republicans who say they believe the claims are sometimes quoted or referred to as expressing an opinion; it is never presented as a fact. Only reliable sources have been used and will be used for this article; unreliable sources have been and will be removed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I oppose deletion as a US president claiming that a presidential election was essentially rigged is incredibly notable and reactions to such a claim are also incredibly notable (even if the claims of fraud are blatantly false). This article does need some clean-up though, since there are minor grammar, spelling, and formatting errors. Perhaps we should call on members of Wikipedia's political projects to assist in this effort. I also would not oppose expanding the article from "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" to "Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" so reactions of other notable national and international figures could be included. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite and expand into a broader article on Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (open to a better title). While I'm not in love with the idea of a 'reactions to reactions to X' article (which is what this ultimately is), in this case Trump's comments are so notable and attracted such comment that I agree reactions to them can justify a separate article. I don't think there's any need though to limit this article to Republican reactions, and that seems to have an implicit POV to it. I think it would be best to expand this into an article describing all major reactions by notable figures to Trump's comments, positive and negative. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I encourage people to write other separate articles about Trump's fraud claims, I think the Republican aspect of it merits its own article instead of being subsumed in a larger article. Not only for navigational reasons to avoid making the article too long (Template:Very long), but because of how important it is to document how specifically Republicans react to the claims: it's their own presidential nominee. They collectively chose Trump to run for re-election, but some now strongly believe he has not been re-elected (which is true) and denounce his claims of electoral fraud which 'steals' his second term, call on him to respect the process and/or concede his loss, while some congratulate Biden/Harris on their victory; other Republicans however go along with his fraud claims. This is a unique historical situation for the Republican Party and therefore interesting and relevant to document in a separate article. Personally, I don't think adding the reactions of Democrats (or Independents) would be very interesting here; you can expect 99% of them to reject the fraud claims, denounce Trump for it and urge him to accept his loss; that's obvious coming from electoral opponents and wouldn't add much. A separate article on the claims themselves, however, and the reactions of electoral experts, scholars/scientists, media, commentators, business and interest groups who don't necessarily represent either party, is very well worth writing. But I'm not personally interested in writing that; my time and energy is limited, and I'm focused on making this a proper article, and I'm happy to leave it to other Wikipedians to write that one. Note also that there is already a separate article for International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election, and that's also already quite long. So there is no compelling reason to lump everything together in one big article if that makes it too long and complex, and if separate articles addressing the same subject from various relevant perspectives suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
length is not the issue - the word count is not high - size is, the formatting is bumping up the kB size, it doesn't know if it's a list or an article, additional content to broaden scope could be added easily. Acousmana (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not conspiracy or fringe theory. You have no authority to claim that. The article should be improved though. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100% WP:FRINGE, Trump conspiracy nonsense writ large, as absurd as injecting bleach to cure coronavirus. Acousmana (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a notable topic and I don't think it should be deleted. It should instead be made very clear that the claims of fraud are unsubstantiated. We should fix the article, not delete it.Herbfur (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, so that the focus of the article is the event itself (claims of fraud or aftermath of election), rather than a particular group of people's response to that event. Dylanvt (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page is a useful resource. Perhaps it can use work, but deletion is not cleanup; it is clear the page does not "lend credence".--Calthinus (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the falsity of Trump's claims and the unprecedented backlash from members of his own party is significant and deserves attention, period. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 04:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a more holistic title discussing the claims of election issues in general and not just Republican responses to it, as there is currently no such page. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such as Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election or the like. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important article, but it should, as mentioned above, be moved because the current title is inappropriate.--Sakiv (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are so many solid sources that hinge on the significance of the relatively binary position fellow party members to Trump must inevitably take. It would be far to monstrous in size were this into something that also encompassed other political party reactions. In response to the claim that this article becomes insignificant when party members are forced to accept the results of fraud investigations: I think that the initial reaction is still relevant because it could potentially become a record of a turning point in these people's careers. An article such as this will then become a valuable resource in rediscovering the sources that logged the early reactions preceding investigation and any potential evidence. Literalkoala (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on renaming: @Acousmana: I disagree with your unilateral move to rename the article to "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's refusal to concede 2020 election" without reaching consensus with the rest of us here. Refusal to concede an election is an entirely different thing than claiming ahead of an election, during an election, and in the aftermath of an election that there is going to be, is or was electoral fraud. This article is about the Republican reactions to what their party's nominee has been claiming from the first moment that Trump alleged that there was going to be fraud on April 7, 2020, with a focus on his November 5 speech that fraud was going on as he was speaking. His refusal to concede after almost all major US news networks called the election on November 7 is a related but different issue. You have not obtained any consent from us here to rename the page as you have done. Many different titles have been suggested here and on the talk page, including:
  1. Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
  2. Reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election
  3. Donald Trump's challenge to the results of the 2020 United States Presidential election
  4. Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
  5. Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election
None of those comes even close to "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's refusal to concede 2020 election". Saying it is more 'neutral' by referring to this Guardian video is not sufficient. I think you really have to justify such a move and cannot do it unilaterally. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
refusal to concede is central to the invention of this concoction, using 'fraud' in the title allows suggestion of something that is incontestable - there is no fraud. The Guardian item provides an example of possible naming convention that avoids use of the word 'fraud.' The guy refusing to concede is what this is all about. Acousmana (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Acousmana, this article is about support / opposition for Trump's arguments of election fraud, which frames his argument of why he is refusing to concede. There is no indication in the article itself that his fraud claims are true or have any merit. Using the word "fraud" in the title does not mean that Wikipedia is advocating or suggesting that there is fraud. I think this is clear as this article is titled "claims of 2020 election fraud" and also clearly stated in the lede: "Trump falsely claimed to have won the election, and made many claims of widespread fraud arising from postal voting, despite substantial evidence to the contrary." Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the title does not mean that Wikipedia is advocating or suggesting that there is fraud," correct, but it's the thin edge of the wedge, how long before you have folk editing the page and adding whatever ludicrous examples of "fraud" the Orange One digs up accompanied by ridiculous talk page debates about the validity of said claims? Acousmana (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to worry about that. Important articles like this are always on multiple Wikipedians' watchlists and vandalism and baseless claims will quickly be removed. I've already done that several times in the past several days and sometimes other Wikipedians were ahead of me in reverting baseless claims. This is not a justification for removing the word 'fraud' from the title of the article, when that is very much part of the subject of the article. I'm sorry if you don't like the word being used just because someone somewhere with an internet connection may not understand what it means in connection to the word 'claims', and try to add nonsense (that we can easily and quickly revert). And yet again, just like Nat9 and many others have pointed out (and I will repeat once again): Everywhere in the article, from the intro above to the sources below, it states that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence at all of large-scale electoral fraud. Only those Republicans who say they believe the claims are sometimes quoted or referred to as expressing an opinion; it is never presented as a fact. We cannot counter misinformation without talking about it, and Wikipedia is a good place to do so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you all feel about this title instead? "Donald Trump's false accusations of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential elections"? --SansUT (talk | contributions) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has been the subject of plenty of coverage, see here:[11] for just one example, and as such it passes WP:GNG. Perhaps the article should be reformatted as a list? Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it was originally a list, now it's a halfway house between list and article, based on the above responses, seems article is what people are leaning toward. Acousmana (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any issue of the notability of the "fraud claims". They are definitely notable, but the article has just not been created yet, and the creator of this article instead framed his article as a "responses" article. We could split out some of the "background" information from this article to that article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Natg 19's proposal. I've got my hands full on updating this article. While designing and writing this article, I expected other Wikipedians to write a separate article about the fraud claims themselves, with fact-check commentary from election experts why they are not true. I don't like it how some people appear to try and bend this article to suit that purpose. This article, separately, is notable enough on its own, namely Republicans' political attitudes to their own party's nominee's claims. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging Stop the Steal with this article. Stop the Steal is a citizens/voters movement that has little to do with the Republican Party's internal dynamics, especially its prominent leaders, many of whom strongly disagree with Trump and criticize him publicly, while Stop the Steal is 100% supportive of Trump. No, these are two very distinct phenomena that should not be merged. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the name does feel a little awkward, the sources do seem to indicate that the topic of republican reaction to these claims is notable. - Aoidh (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Based on the above discussion, there clearly is not a consensus to delete. Despite that, this is one of the clunkiest titles I've come across. When the page is kept, it must be renamed, preferably to something that is not paragraph-length. KidAd talk 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Renaming it might be a good idea, but I've no idea as to what. This is an important and notable topic and is something that the future of the entire planet might hinge on. There are plenty of articles where disaster nearly came but was avoided. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 70% of Republicans say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35% of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election (in other words this is far from being fringe, a significant majority of GOP voters believe this...and probably will be waging war against Biden/Harris for the next four years. Yodabyte (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fringe belief, doesn't matter how many believe it, most are muppets who get their info from compromised news sources, Facebook forums, and Stormfront, any wonder a Qanon book is an Amazon bestseller Acousmana (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the kind of s**t that makes a mockery out of NOTNEWS. We could make a million "...reactions to ..." and split it off from every single main article, thereby elevating the "reaction" to the level of the originary event. It's like non-personalities making response videos on YouTube or Instagram. No, this is not an important and notable topic. There are all kinds of things that matter here, and a lot of them may, in the long run, matter in an encyclopedic fashion, but a catalog of (ever-changing) "reactions" is not one of them. "But it's verified!" Yeah, and so is everything else. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 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 Draft-ify. Article already moved to draft by creator, and commenters in the discussion seem fine with that. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bianchini[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that reads as an advertisement/resume. Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/draftify. I don't know how the California state judiciary works. According to the (unsourced) article, he was a "California Superior Court Judge, San Diego County". Per WP:NJUDGE, is this a statewide office, or a county-wide office? In any event, this very new article should probably be draftified to (1) add sources and (2) demonstrate notability, as both WP:NPOL/WP:NJUDGE and WP:SOLDIER look plausible, but as we can't keep an unsourced BLP in mainspace (this technically qualifies for WP:BLPPROD), it should be draftified for improvement and de-promo-ization. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The California superior courts are the trial courts in California -- the lowest level of courts there. For a statewide judge, one would need to be on the Supreme Court of California. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, this article has already been moved to draftspace, so this AfD should probably be closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment although the decision was made prematurely, I agree with it, and the discussion should be closed, unless anyone disagrees. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not making this a draft in the first place was my mistake, which I corrected as soon as it was pointed out. Thanks for all the advice and feedback, I think everyone is in agreement. Glenn Anderson (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. It's already been deleted. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hirushi Jayasena[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Naïve Google search shows that she exists, and that she uses social media. We knew that. The search does not find any third-party discussion.

Moved to draft space twice and moved back to article space twice without discussion. There is a draft at Draft:Hirushi Jayasena which can be kept if article is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many third-party discussions and interviews about her on the web including leading newspapers in Sri Lanka. But they are in Sinhala language because most Sri Lankans are Sinhala. You can search terms "හිරුශි ජයසේන" or "හිරුෂි ජයසේන" and use Google Translate to verify that. --Rasanjana Deshan (talk) 11:50, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dunn (political activist)[edit]

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

BLP with extremely weak sourcing. There is one decent source about Dunn, the Vice profile, but it doesn't really support the claim that Dunn is a prominent member of the movement rather than just someone they got to agree to an interview. This Wikipedia article generally overstates Dunn's influence on the movement compared to what the sources say—most of them seem to identify him simply as a member of the movement, or at most one of the few people in the movement willing to speak to press. The rest of the sourcing that mentions Dunn is quite poor—a video by the deprecated source WP:RSP#RT, a brief mention in a video by Reason TV, and some mentions in an NPR source about a single event that do not identify him as any sort of prominent figure in the movement. The News2Share source purporting to support that Dunn has collaborated with "left-wing groups... such as BLM" doesn't appear to even mention him. The ADL source also doesn't mention him.

I have read a lot of sources about the boogaloo movement while writing Boogaloo movement, and I don't believe any of them mentioned Dunn—if they did, it was a passing mention.

I think there's some possibility of a WP:COI here, given the description on File:Mike Dunn.jpg: "i was given this my mike dunn". I have also tagged that file for deletion because that contradicts the claim that it is the uploader's own work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I've also come across Virginia Knights Militia by the same author and have nominated it for deletion as well due to the same kinds of issues. I'd have bundled the deletion discussion had I noticed it earlier, but since people have already weighed in here I've left them separate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough quality sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur there is not enough information from reliable sources to justify an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is not a ton of reliable sources to support WP:GNG criteria. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:41, 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 University of South Florida Herd of Thunder#South Florida school songs. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Brahman March[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University_of_South_Florida_Herd_of_Thunder#South_Florida_school_songs, where it is mentioned. The only non USF-sponsored coverage I could find was a brief mention here and a few brief mentions in newspapers.com articles such as [12] and [13]. I was expecting to find coverage for this, but nothing significant not published by UST turned up, but it's at least worth a redirect to a target that tells the reader it's the USF fight song. Hog Farm Bacon 03:13, 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 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Beziazykov[edit]

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

Fails WP:Bio, not enough reliable, indepth sources yet about him. Fram (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:22, 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun (actor)[edit]

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

A non notable actor with only supporting roles Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 9 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, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-10 ✗ R2, 2020-10 ✗ R2, 2020-10 move to → Draft:Arun (actor)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Students Welfare Association[edit]

Maharashtra Students Welfare Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Draft:Maharashtra Students Welfare Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View MfD) DECOUPLED PER STRONG OBJECTIONS AT Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Maharashtra Students Welfare Association davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Replacing existing PROD - I want a discussion rather than a PROD - I don't think this is notable and I would like the "weight" of AFD to apply. If I am wrong, then of course it should stay. This AFD will be a combined discussion with an MFD for Draft:Maharashtra Students Welfare Association · ( talk | logs | links | watch | mfd ) · [revisions], a rejected WP:AFC submission which had substantially the same content before I turned it into a redirect (last non-redirect revision). I have opened a "procedural" MFD, linked above. That MFD just points back here for the combined discussion. As nominator, I say "delete both" to deter re-creation of future drafts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily as there's not even a credible assertion of notability here. The organization, only a few months old, has done enough to be mentioned in a couple of news items, but not nearly enough to have any references about them. Article apparently created by members of the organization. --Finngall talk 16:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple chances were given for editors to find articles that cover the organization in detail, but the only references provided were routine news coverage where the organization is only mentioned as a byline. There have been multiple efforts to push this into mainspace or submitted, along with the related article about its founder. The main complaint pushed by the organization was that various schools either postponed or cancelled their final exams because of the Covid pandemic, so this could technically be covered in COVID-19_pandemic_in_India#Education It's also not the only organization that protested, but probably the most prominent one in the Pune University area. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This reference for example has a little bit more coverage on the organization, but it's posted by the WP:RSP-unreliable Times of India: [14] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also recommend Salt on mainspace spot. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Beniwal[edit]

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

BPL that doesn't meet NACTOR Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 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 delete. I am not persuaded by the keep vote, which is essentially a "yesinherited" argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Wayside Mt Pleasant Parish[edit]

Our Lady of the Wayside Mt Pleasant Parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No claim of notability either for the parish or the building. It seems a run-of-the-mill mid-1900s parish. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my standards. The building is less than 100 years old (1959), is not a Historic Site in the jurisdiction, is not distinguished for its structure or designer, has no notable congregants, is not notable for its music programme, is not a major site of pilgrimage nor synod, and zero sources online exist about weddings or other liturgical events there. If you want to be kind, redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Harare. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - funeral for Trudy Stevenson, a notable ambassador was held here. It could possibly be merged into the college 650 meters away if it cannot be kept.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:40, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timur Khakimov[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Originally deleted in 2011. Recreated in 2016. As of 2020, the player still fails NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still fails GNG and NFOOTY and with no real likelihood that they will pass it any time soon Spiderone 18:53, 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 merge to List of Street Fighter characters#Birdie. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birdie (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

Like the previous noms, reception is lackluster and consists entirely of listicles in what little is there. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's barely anything worth reading even from the 7 sources which have been cited. Haleth (talk) 17:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SoulPage IT Solutions[edit]

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

The sources provided at the bottom of the article are mere listings and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I've found another article with somewhat more coverage (this) but I'm not sure this is sigcov either. Having done a search, some other articles with brief mentions are available. Overall, I believe WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY is not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails NCORPDEPTH. The money control article does not qualify as significant source.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, sole claim to notability per WP:CORP is being one of five startups to be shortlisted for a potentially significant national project. No prejudice against re-creation if they win the competitive tender and are catapulted to fame, fortune and WP:SIGCOV. Captain Calm (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination does not meet notability requirements.VVikingTalkEdits 15:00, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Griffith[edit]

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

No evidence they meet our notability criteria. I can see that he's published books and a couple are mentioned in reliable sources but with no discussion. Looking at the author's own edits to the article I can find him removing one review he didn't like, but that's not sufficient.[15] Doug Weller talk 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of Griffith's work (such as that associated with John F. Kennedy) seems to fall under fringe theorists issues. His work related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just seems to lack impact. Articles need to be built on secondary coverage of the subject, we are lacking that here. As mention John A. Tvednes' review of one of his works, which Griffith thinks is "shoddy" is the only review anyone seems to have come across. At the time the FARMS review functioned with multiple purposes, one of which was to warn Latter-day Saints against low quality, shoddy apologetics. Basically the review was trying to be comprehensive in a specific field, so it alone is not a good judge of importance or impact, Tvednes was quite clear the thought the work in question was not very worth while. True, you can become notable for down right mediocre and low quality work, but it takes more than one review to achieve that, and one review seems to be all we have. Griffith fails the general notability guidelines, he fails the notability guidelines for writers, and he fails the notability guidelines by a huge margin for academics. When your Amazon bio is mentioning you got a paper as an undergraduate published you clearly have not published works with academic impact. I was the original creator of this article, and the one who included the review that Griffith himself called "shoddy", which per the review is a better word for some of Griffith's work. I have since 2009 come to better understand Wikipedia notability guidelines, and in this case have to agree that Griffith is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Karnataka Women's League season[edit]

2019–20 Karnataka Women's League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season fails WP:NSEASONS criteria and probably WP:GNG also. Google doesn't yield much. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, this is not a WP:FPL or high-level league, so never going to be sufficient coverage for a stand alone season article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifies a league as "high-level" in this case? There are leagues that aren't FPL that have season articles, so I am wondering what the cutoff point is. I find it harder to judge non-Anglosphere leagues on this due to non-English sourcing, and I don't know the Indian football league system that well. Jay eyem (talk) 05:13, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tucci[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 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, 17 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) 08:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Vorster[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 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, 17 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Evans (rugby union, born 1997)[edit]

Jack Evans (rugby union, born 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player joining sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 9 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, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2019-02 ✍️ 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tira Patterson[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 9 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, 17 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 merge to List of Street Fighter characters. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gen (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

Like the previous nomination of Alex, the reception for this character is entirely listicles and therefore made up of WP:TRIVIAL mentions. Literally everything else is WP:OR. Therefore fails GNG and does not merit a standalone article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's impressive how the long reception section is pretty much just a paragraph version of 'he was n-th on list y, and m-th on list z', which a recent RSN discussion are not reliable and not sufficient for establishing notability. That said, it may be best to merge the reception section to the list of Street Fighter characters, it has some value, unlike the unreferenced plot-summary fancruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Piotr Spiderone 10:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Piotr's reasoning as well as the WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as information from the reception can easily be folded in the list entry. Disagree that a RSN discussion between 2 or 3 editors can be construed as WP:Consensus. It is exactly what it is, the opinions of two or three editors on a certain viewpoint which is not endorsed or thoroughly vetted by the rest of the editor community. Haleth (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Good example of using listicles as justification for a coat rack of unsourced, in-universe detail. @Piotrus, related to your archived discussion, you might be interested in WP:ROSENBERG. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:02, 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) 08:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Saint[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 9 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, 17 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman usurper[edit]

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

18 years after the article was created and 8 years after the last AfD discussion (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman usurper), not one citation has ever been added to the article, and the whole concept is in any case an ancient POV fork with Roman emperor, which could use a section on the short-lived incumbents who get called usurpers, to go with our List of Roman usurpers. GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUpport per nom. Alternatively merge with List of Roman usurpers; what may in theory be salvaged could be dumped there. Avis11 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect (changed my opinion slightly) to List of Roman usurpers, so as not to lose the page history. "Roman usurper" in itself is also a plausible search term. Avis11 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be mergeable sentences to put in other articles, but only if sources are found. This is a personal essay. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As was noted in the previous deletion discussion, the topic is notable, and any extended discussion is beyond the scope of the list article—although a list would not be beyond the scope of this one. The length of time that the article has needed significant work is not really the point: there is no time limit to improve articles, and we don't delete articles on notable topics merely because nobody has taken the time and effort to improve them significantly. I agree that it's written much like an essay, but that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. As long as the article is there, there is impetus for editors with knowledge of the topic to work on it. If we delete it, we merely hide the evidence that there was a neglected topic in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete -- there may possibly be something worth merging into List of Roman usurpers. I have to say that I am not sure that list is wholly complete: my memory of the later history of Roman Britain suggests that there were a number of usurping emperors, who ruled Britain and perhaps a bit more without any wider authority. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - as per P Aculeius. Iv'e added one piece of litterature to the article. In the related German article, there can be found three more examples of litterature on this topic, though all in German. I will for now leave it to others to judge, whether these German titles are relevant to add to the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Roman usurpers I don't see a compelling reason to have two articles on this topic. (t · c) buidhe 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed that the information is notable. This article has little relation to the list being proposed for redirect—that article does not actually discuss the phenomenon of this article. Agreed it hasn't been fixed in a decade, but as said, there is no time limit to fix articles. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:42, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basma El Ghouate[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, without any notable records and doesn’t meet the Wikipedia criteria. also a page under title of same subject has been removed.Fatzaof (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:41, 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. At best there is only one source, which has been challenged. As it could be close to meeting our requirements I'd be happy tonreview further sources. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C9 Companion[edit]

C9 Companion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

other than the jerusalem post (which I question as being written by their editorial staff) the rest of the sources are black hat seo from sniped, once reputable sites and PR pieces (as in the IBT piece) and I can find nothing else in the way of coverage to satisfy NSOFT Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The non-trivial mentions look to be fluff pieces drumming up excitement and trying to enroll new users.Citing (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have removed the depreciated source. NSOFT is an essay but this topic has received significant covergae in independent sources[16], [17] to satisfy the notability guideline. Nerilanik (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this is nothing more than a regurgitated press release and isn't reliable. Jpost is...meh as a source for this right now but it would be the sole independent source which isn't enough for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I urged to keep it based on Jpost coverage and while multiple coverage is expected (which it has), "there is no fixed number of sources required" according to WP:GNG. Nerilanik (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Jpost source isn't suitable for a standalone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 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. Keep votes have been refuted. Previous close was a script error Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AK Ikwuakor[edit]

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

Former member of a relay team, achievements do not meet WP:NATH. Coverage is focussed on the relay team not the individual, or is not independent. 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject holds the Nigerian athletic record in 400-meter hurdles and has numerous other titles at individual and relay level—essentially fulfilling WP:NATH. Also, his business has quite a bit of independent and verifiable coverage as well, including a detailed article by Sports Illustrated. Momer313 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input as the creator of the article. Please be advised that non-individual events (such as relay) and records that are not world records do not fulfil WP:NATH. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject would have to succeed in an actual competition, a prestigious regional competition such as the African Games or Commonwealth Games would have been enough. His Nigerian record in hurdles is not a good record in the athletics world, and we have thousands of national record holders ineligible for Wikipedia inclusion. Geschichte (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is an very known athlete in African World. Wikipedia is full of articles of athletes at lower junior and high school levels. Article is needed to overwrite in a more neutral way.Montell 74 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a relay runner who didn't compete on the African scene, known in the "African World"? This is so counter-intuituve that is has to be proven. He retired several years ago, so won't get any more coverage for athleticism. In addition, the claim that Wikipedia has written about a large number of high school athletes is just bull, and irrelevant anyway. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that GNG is met (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lowenstein Sandler[edit]

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

this is mostly a list of services, They seem to have been involved in no cases that are notable by WP standards. This was originally contributed in 2007, where standards were lower DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lowenstein is a pretty notable firm in the American legal world IMHO. For example, a Google News search shows quite a few recent articles about cases they are handling and attorneys that are joining or leaving the firm.[1] Likewise, Law360 reports 1,631 articles that reference them and 1,201 cases that have been covered in the media that they are in some way associated with.[2] That said, I agree that the article, as written is not sufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. My point is only to say that I think this is an article that could certainly meet the notability requirement. So I favor keeping and either adding some templates regarding notability and lack of sources or, at most, moving the page to draft and letting someone else work on improving it. Just my 2 cents. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "lowenstein sandler - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
  2. ^ "Lowenstein Sandler : Articles :: Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
  • Delete Vague lists of links are not helpful - we know the firm exists, what we need are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. 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++ 18:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I respectfully disagree with DGG. Based on the notable lawyers in the firm, and its WP:SIGCOV, it easy passes my standards for law firms. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline here, but it was not written with law firms specifically in mind, so we need to find analogies in using its criteria. According to NCORP, routine articles bout staff changes are not usable sources for notability, so I think that applies to the sources about lawyers leavingor entering the firm. Routine articles about the routine business of sales to X Y & Z or about what non-notable customers a firm has does not meet NCoRP, so articles about cases dod not count either unless the cases are notable in the Wikipedia sense. The argument that the firm is important is the argument I would use in advocating replacing the GNG guidelines by rational criteria, but , though I keep trying, it does not have consensus or seem likely to. What we've been doing instead is modifying the aceptable sources to yield some degree of rationality or conformity with the RW conception of notability--NCORP has been a particularly succesful effort in this direction. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find coverage such as this and so WP:NEXIST applies: "The absence of sources or citations in an article ... does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Our policy is that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BEFORE; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a convincing source. The page linked to in this trade industry guide literally says "The Firm Says", indicating that the content provided is not independent. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is a compilation of diversity programs at "the country's top law firms". This naturally includes information supplied by those companies. The content establishes notability because there is editorial content, oversight and selection. It is rich in detail and so quite suitable for our purpose. Of course, their diversity program is just one aspect but it's easy to find other details such as this – an account of an acquisition that didn't go well. Such sources indicate that the firm is substantial and that there's plenty to find if you will only just look. And it's the nominator's job to do a detailed source search, not mine. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 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. Clearly an edge notability case, but right now the community leans toward that he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Larimer[edit]

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

notability not established, using primary self-published sources like github, other sources are not primarily about Larimer Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ҥ: That Forbes blog piece (admittedly written by staff) is 140 words (not a lot, it would fit in a tweet). It has no journalistic content, probably relying 100% on a short email exchange or phone call.

The two Roanoke articles are local news, obviously biased to prop up a local company. If local media can be relied on to establish notability, we'd have 20 articles for every town with its own newspaper. I am not saying that they are not reliable, but I don't think it can establish notability. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:31, 18 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) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am discarding the last "delete" comment as a argument to avoid, needs further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomWalker:, there is no guideline that grants notability if a person is associated with any particular threshold amount of money. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to backup, just mentions and pr stuff. Sliekid (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of WP:PUFF for a BLP article. It seems to be mostly company and is WP:PROMO at best. Of the 13 references, 15 are invalid, company references that are announcement, PR of some kind. The [18] is a dependent source, an interview. The ref is a dud. Doing a search a found coverage related to his position. No real secondary sources were discovered. Looking at the sources provided above:
Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth coverage. All PR in one way or another. scope_creepTalk 09:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in Fortune that required Dan Larimer's input, expect maybe to confirm his age. Not even his "smiling" picture.
"Inside the Chaotic Launch of a $4 Billion Crypto Project" is from the Wall Street Journal and there's nothing that suggests that it's based off an announcement or press-release. From the article: "Three-hour conference call at EOS reveals tensions among developers", "But infighting among the software’s fragmented developers shows it still has a way to go before the platform lives up to the hype", and "Block.one couldn’t be reached for comment."
The source that you claimed was "deprecated" is by a Forbes staff writer not "contributor" if that was what you were thinking. A source doesn't lose independence because they contacted the subject and included a quote. Ҥ (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ҥ: how can that Forbes source be reputable? How is it in-depth? I asked you above. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no major issue with it. It is more than a mention and I think it helps. See WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Ҥ (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm at a little bit of a loss how to close this without super!voting, as the discussion requires looking at the articles and the sources. I would agree notability hinges on the local pieces, the Forbes piece, and the WSJ piece. The local pieces are just that, per scope creep. The Forbes piece is staff written, but it is very short, providing little in-depth coverage. The question is about the Wall Street Journal. It is also by a staff writer, and I'm having difficulty classifying it as strictly a PR piece. However, I can't access the whole article, but from what I can see it doesn't seem to contain much information about Larimer, rather about the project. For those who have access, how much information is there about the topic at hand, that could be used to create encyclopedic content about Larimer? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
78.26 I have access to the whole article, and you could get to it through ProQuest via the Wikipedia Libraries bundle. All the coverage I see of Larimer in the article is Investors pumped some $4 billion into EOS in a sale of digital tokens that ended this month. In a promotional video for its initial coin offering, Dan Larimer, Block.one’s chief technology officer, called EOS a “blockchain technology that can support real-world use cases serving millions of users." Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, most source analysis per 78.26, as I mention above the WSJ article isn't SIGCOV of Larimer himself, and has minimal indication of being of use about writing an encyclopedic article on Larimer. It's mostly about EOS.IO, I'd say. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - he's almost notable, but currently the WP:V information we have about him is of the "X did Y" routine variety. The Roanoke Times piece is a RS, and although it has some useful bits of information that could be used it is a local-interest story, more about bitcoin phenomonem than Larimer. The Forbes piece is the best we have, and the sum total of what we have isn't really enough to create an encyclopedic NPOV article, just a resume. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Jones (rugby union)[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 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, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2019-02 ✍️ 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolby Francis[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ng[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 9 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, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martini Talapusi[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 9 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, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Deacon[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for teams so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 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, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2019-09 ✍️ 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amro Gouda[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so not enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 9 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, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Walsh[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not have enough significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 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, 17 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) 07:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOORvision Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PRODer - my concern remains that this does not pass any of the primary criteria at NCORP; the sources are largely not reliable or independent and do not establish the significance of this company in its field Spiderone 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them fail WP:SIRS.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Denise[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not have significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Parry[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news on him signing for sides for no significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 9 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, 17 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Kunda Jr[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Alleged 14 caps for Zaragoza (from ogol.br source) do not check out. Page previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Kunda, Jr. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was having a look on google, but other than some rumour news, I see no indication that this player even passes WP:GNG, Govvy (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you can clearly see news articles that say otherwise, i'm befuddled at the fact that the article meets criteria as him making his professional debut, but was nominated for deletion. vivalionel1 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - he made his debut but it was in the third tier of Spanish football, which is not fully professional (see WP:FPL). I am not seeing any evidence that he passes our general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) Spiderone 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's ludicrous to think he doesn't meet the critiria when the refrences and articles say he does, makes no sense why this article was nominated for deletion. (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote Spiderone 19:39, 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 delete. There is clear consensus at this time that the subject does not currently pass WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Pasi[edit]

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

No references, and so unable to verify or to establish notability. No links to other articles, and so does not provide context, and is not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - potentially notable as 'Maharaja Lakhan Pasi' does get a few hits. I can see the user is working on this in draft already and have no idea why they posted this to the main space without going through AfC Spiderone 10:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Agree with Spiderone - the "article", such as it is, does not negate that there exist some GNG-relevant coverage of the subject in RS/IS. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 10:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's already an unsourced Draft:Lakhan Pasi, creator indefinitely blocked for topic ban problems on the Pasi caste. Creator of this new article tried to re-submit that draft a week ago, and it was declined. Captain Calm (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is far past time that we stopped tolerating unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, I could have said draftify if I were feeling generous (which I'm not), so as to give the creating editor the chance to yada yada... but I really hate it when people just publish stuff like this — a single-sentence stub with no punctuation, even, let alone any meaningful content or context, not to mention fancy stuff like references — and leave it for others to do the hard work of justifying why it should be kept. We don't even know if 'Lakhan Pasi' is a maharaja, a character in a Bollywood film, or the best mate of the creator's nephew! Fails on every. single. policy point, in other words. And shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, IMHO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains nothing and just barely avoids multiple speedy deletion criteria. ~EdGl talk 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there are sources supporting a potentially notable topic those sources will still be there when someone actually wants to sit down and write an article. Draftify isn’t an option for the reasons given above and if we’re ok with allowing single unsourced sentences into mainspace maybe we should consider whether we need New Pages Patrol or not. Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has nothing to it and is unsourced. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't anything content-wise that would be particularly useful if draftified. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:58, 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rich[edit]

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

I don't think writing only one book is enough for a biography article. I think this article is almost a SPEEDY candidate frankly. ImTheIP (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing on the page about Dave Rich just a lot of stuff about anti-semitism and about a book he wrote, on anti-semitism, and his doctoral thesis, about anti-semitism. It's almost a copy paste from the page about the book.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article about the book. It's WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2015 PhD. One book isn't typically going to get to WP:NAUTHOR, either, per WP:BLP1E. While there's plenty of coverage of the book, the coverage of the author is incidental to that of the book, so I'm not seeing GNG. Comment that the Times of Israel piece seems to me to be solidly about the book; the book is certainly notable enough for an article, which could include some minimal details about the author. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of those hits are for other people named Dave Rich. The first hit is for a nurse named Dave Rich, the second for a musician named Dave Rich and so on. ImTheIP (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above GNews search is unfiltered, with 1700+ results, and a lot of them are indeed false positives. A filtered GNews search "Dave Rich"+ "Jewish" produces 700+ hits and I did not see any false positives there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep besides being an author of a notable book, Rich fills a major community role in Community Security Trust, and in that context has received significant coverage such as [29] and [30]. He is also quoted far and wide on British antisemitism by multiple news organizations over a long period of time, as one of the leading experts on the topic.--Hippeus (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is merely a spokesperson for his employer, who funded the studies on which he based his book, and a useful source for the media of anti-Corbyn quotes. He is not an academic or established author and has no independent significance. Jontel (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What a perfect example of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the requirements of GNG, per Shrike, though just barely. Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Chase[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, minor roles only so far, no significant coverage in reliable sources online. Captain Calm (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 06:42, 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) 07:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankitha Lakshmi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. No credible sources found to verify her work. Fails WP:RS Palmsandbeaches (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 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. There isn't a consensus for deleting these articles as a group. Multiple editors suggested individual nominations as warranted. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia women's national junior handball team[edit]

Croatia women's national junior handball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are multiple national junior handball teams. There does not appear to be a notability guideline within sports notability guidelines for handball, and there does not appear to be a special notability guideline for teams, so general notability guidelines are the only guidelines that are applicable. The sources to these articles do not amount to independent significant coverage, so the teams do not appear to be notable.

Added entry/entries[edit]

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'm pretty sure any teams in a junior league aren't notable. Unless there is something super fantastical about them. More so with these though because they seem to lack in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As per nom, fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You see the handball youth teams are in the same prominence as football. If you don't questions all youth national teams of all team sports I think this is again an attack of some User of the USA against handball because they don't know it better. So please stop AFD handball articles if you don't know the significant of the sport. I also don't put AFD's one various American football articles because I never heard of them. Malo95 (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge I expect that there's more coverage to be found in places such as "The Ocho" but if I dip into that I'm more more likely to start writing about sports that I understand, such as chess boxing, death diving or stone skipping. As notability is a guideline which counsels the use of common sense, let's try that instead.
Handball is clearly a respectable, organised sport and it appears to be quite popular in countries such as Croatia. Such sports are obviously divided into different classes such as women/junior and it would not be neutral to focus on only some of them, such as adult men. The pages seem to have have constructed in a systematic, tabular fashion and that seems reasonably sensible. What's missing is an umbrella article such as Croatian handball or Handball in Croatia which will provide some context and prose to explain the various tables.
The most applicable policy here seems to be WP:IMPERFECT which explains that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." We still seem to be at the "few random facts" stage of development and so more time is needed. Deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With little research I found in a few minutes many sources for the Croatian, Hungarian and Icelandic teams. I've add them to the articles. In the evening I'll add sources for the other teams. I found many sources so far. For me it looks like all junoir handball teams will pass GNG. Malo95 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I only looked at Iceland and found ample coverage of its various junior handball teams.[31][32][33][34][35]. Were any attempts made to look for sources, per WP:BEFORE, before the articles were nominated for deletation? As all of the teams nominated are from non-english speaking countries, a search in news articles in their own language should be conducted to prevent WP:BIAS. Alvaldi (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course I have create these articles as a simple entries ok, there is a lack of some sources I agree, for exm players, coaches ext.. I will add it by time, but remember these articles are new and need some patient for development hopefully to reach a positive consensus.

Handball is an olympic game sport, That we should respect this fact. Thanks. 23:40, 9 November 2020 Talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This feels to me like it would be best served by closing this as no consensus (with no prejudice against re-nominating), and then having a discussion about the relative notability of men's handball / women's handball / men's junior handball / women's junior handball teams, from different countries. Having it in AfD makes participants feel like there's a ticking clock, which is not necessarily conducive to a nuanced discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. There should really be a clause in WP:NSPORT about it. Currently all it has is the thing about players of Gaelic games that are handballers. Which clearly isn't adequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass nom: A team which has competed in the Youth Olympics and has won medals has much different notability concerns than a team that has never placed higher than 10th in their represpective competitions. No prejudice to re-nomming them individually. Jumpytoo Talk 01:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (procedural), 14 articles nominated in one bundle is kind of stretching it, ie. say minimum of 90mins for editors to look for references, although some editors above have apparently easily found sources pretty quickly for some of the articles, pointing to a lack of WP:BEFORE? (as does noms statement - "The sources to these articles do not amount to .." - so, did they look for others?); a couple of points: there are around 27mill registered players around the world with most players in europe (see here) so some of their teams might warrant an article? most national sports teams appear to be wikinotable, these articles are, however, dealing with junior teams, in the main, junior teams even at the national level do not appear to be deemed wikinotable (see only around 1000(?) articles at junior national team category), but just may need more editors to expand the no.(?). anyway, that will do:). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep youth national teams are notable and as presented here, can be (easily) sourced better. Kante4 (talk) 10:00, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anabel Barnston[edit]

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

Actress possibly fails WP:NACTRESS Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Based on WP:NACTOR, I think the subject just scrapes through. Her significant role in Coming of Age, her role in the film, The Zombie King, and her recurring parts in other TV series are enough, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The sourcing just doesn't seem to be there, it's all extremely trivial, and I'm not sure how notable her roles are. Maybe they are, but they don't seem to be. Or else, there should be more/better quality coverage of her. That said, I'll change my vote if sourcing is improved enough to meet the notability standards. There only seems to be three hits for her on Google News. So, I'm expecting it to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As it is now, notability has not been established. It's in the "grey" area, and my opinion is that if no additional references (with more than just passing mentions) are added to the article - whatever the reason may be - then Delete. Bezrat (talk) 15:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey O'Connor[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOL. Not sourced. Pamzeis (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pamzeis (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - O'Connor has grown since 2014 AFD to meet the WP:POLITICIAN requirements. He has distinguished himself from his late father Bob O'Connor the former Mayor of Pittsburgh. As a councilman, he's now been reelected to multiple terms. He was a notable figure in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that happened in his district. As a result he's become a voice on several national issues including facial recognition and gun control. Lastly, the nomination was 5 minutes into the creation of the article and does not reflect the current state. Popscreenshot (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be simply a local politician to me, all of the comments from the 2014 AfD seem to still apply. SportingFlyer T·C 10:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a fair amount of coverage, for example [36] [37] [38] [39]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Grove, Caldwell County, Kentucky[edit]

Hickory Grove, Caldwell County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such feature Caldwell County in Rennick. The 1928 and 1931 topos show a Hickory Grove School with no associated community at coordinates given in the GNIS entry. A party took place there in 1926. I found a similar entry about a Christmas party, as well. I've been able to turn up some additional coverage stating that so-and-so was a teacher or student at this school, but it doesn't rise to the bar of significant coverage. I'm seeing a WP:GEOLAND and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES failure here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There seem to be about 1400 Hickory Groves in Kentucky, so searching seems to be exceptionally difficult, and only a weak delete as a result (basically, delete without prejudice.) However I can't get past WP:V. There may have been a cemetery there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wang[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for notability Avidreaderofbuuks (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Ryan Wang[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unsourced biography of a living person who in no way meets our notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just did a basic google news search and found articles covering Wang over the span of 5 years. I have cleaned up the article a little bit using some of the sources, but it could use some more work. The subject seems to easily meet WP:BASIC and coverage over 5 years shows it's not just a BLP1E situation for Carnegie Hall/Ellen. Samsmachado (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that the nominator's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to nominate this article for deletion. The nominator does not appear to have done their WP:BEFORE check nor does the nomination cite a specific rationale/policy for deletion. Samsmachado (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article such as The Straits Times and CBC and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the coverage of his performances shows notability. Article is appropriately sourced and scoped.   // Timothy :: talk  17:42, 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) 22:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick's index calls it a locale, the definition of which excludes places that are legally recognized populated places, which means a probably WP:GEOLAND failure. Topos show a between 1-5 houses at the area, depending on how large of an area around the name you assume is Jolly. Newspapers.com brings up a couple mentions of Jolly as a local landmark (such as something being three miles north of Jolly), but I've found nothing either there or on Google books suggesting there was a legally recognized community here. Lacking proof that this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG, it can't really remain. Hog Farm Bacon 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looking under both versions of the name produced nothing significant. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There's at least some indication a place called Jolly existed at this spot, but I'm having trouble getting it past WP:V as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Pritzl[edit]

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

Assistant college basketball coach who fails WP:NSPORTS. Prod recently removed with an invalid rationale. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - associate head coaches are not head coaches. Fails WP:NSPORT.Onel5969 TT me 18:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assistant coaches are kind of a mixed bag - some are notable while some are not. In this case, I think the sources [40] [41] [42] [43] indicate he meets GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would benefit from more analysis of the sources presented. All of those opining for deletion have cited a secondary notability guideline, two of which simply redirect to the top of the guideline page, without being more specific, and none have addressed the sources presented and whether or not the subject meets the General notability guideline. Ultimately, if subjects meet the GNG, it is not necessary for them to also meet a SNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by EDDY, of the three I could access all contained significant coverage of this individual, and Green Bay, Wisconsin is a large enough place for its local media to be reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:38, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Whittell High School[edit]

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

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. Article is mainly unsourced WP:OR and is inappropriate to merge.   // Timothy :: talk  10:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  10:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  10:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article from Tahoe Daily Tribune currently cited in the page, about the school winning the College Board AP Computer Science Female Diversity Award, certainly qualifies as WP:RS and it provides detailed and in-depth coverage of the subject. There is lots of of the coverage of the school in the same newspaper, as GNews searching shows. One can argue that one needs other sources, but they do exist as well, e.g. [44][45],[46], [47], [48], for example. There was also a Master's thesis at SUNY Oneonta in 2005 about the school [49], which I think counts for something. Overall there seems to be enough here to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources seem to be trivial local coverage of things that don't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. For instance trivial stuff about their booster club or them closing down temporarily due to the bad air quality from fires in the area. Both of which are pretty WP:MILL. The master thesis doesn't work for notability either, because it's not a peer reviewed journal or anything else that would provide editorial oversight. Plus, it only mentions the school in extreme passing anyway. Ultimately, nothing here qualifies as in-depth or notable, and at the end of the day this is a pretty average (or below average) school that is going about it's day to day business. like almost every other school out there. Wikipedia isn't a directory and that's literally all this is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination does not seem to have followed WP:BEFORE, searched for sources per WP:NEXIST or considered sensible alternatives to deletion. The places is covered in sources such as the Nevada Education Bulletin and The College Board Guide to High Schools and so just needs development and expansion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know both those are primary sources right? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources are "one step removed" from the institution and so are secondary. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevada Education Bulletin is by the Nevada department of Education. In no way is that one step removed. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Nominator could have done a quick google search and found a number of RS establishing notability. The article should be improved, not deleted. Elmssuper 05:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind me asking, which sources make it "easily" meet WP:GNG? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surprised this was nominated. A simple Newspapers.com search shows this school clearly meets WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealandic[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. I'm a New Zealander, and I've never come across this form before. Murray Langton (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could have been A11 speedied, as it's obviously made up. The (now blocked) creating editor was warned against this but went ahead anyway. The sooner this is deleted, the better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hesitant to tag speedy because of the Wiktionary entry, but WP:SNOW should apply now so hopefully this can be deleted now due to the unanimous consensus to delete. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above - shouldn't be too far off WP:SNOW I hope Spiderone 08:06, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Brazilian states and sovereign states by GDP[edit]

Comparison between Brazilian states and sovereign states by GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Idiosyncratic topic. Geschichte (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OTHERSTUFF and John Pack Lambert. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless multiple sources can be found comparing Brazilian states to other sovereign states by GDP, then this is clear WP:SYNTH and should be deleted Spiderone 08:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This information may be a bit useful in certain situations, but exactly what is so important about the distance between Brazil and other regions? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:49, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_9&oldid=990411023"