Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 October 8 October >

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 merge to Gordon Rausser. Consensus is to do a partial merge of only the notable awards back to the main article on Rausser. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser[edit]

List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempt to bypass draft space with promotional overcoverage. It was previously contributed, and I moved it to draft as Draft:List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser with the comment "Overextensive list. The major awards belong in the article on him/. The minor ones don't belong in WP at all. The ones from his own university don't belong in WP at all This seems to be a promotional attempt to give the same overextended treatment we give performers." Perhaps I should just have merged back the ones worth merging and redirected in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional, WP:UNDUE list of largely non-notable awards. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge Obviously we shouldn't have a list of awards longer than the subject's biography itself. Wikipedia is not the place to paste in Mr. Rausser's CV (which can be found here) and only a small selection of the most significant awards should be listed. Reywas92Talk 19:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If DDG's only contention that Gordon Rausser's awards are considered promotional and over coverage solely for the reason the recipient works there, this is completely invalid and should not prompt deletion of the page for the following reason:

1. The Citation Award, Builders of Berkeley, and Fellowship awards are not given simply because of an UC Berkeley affiliation, but given to less than five individuals at a given year who have distinguished themselves through their work and experience. It is unclear why DDG believes the "ones from his own university don't belong in WP." This seems to imply Gordon Rausser owns UC Berkeley, when in fact, he is a professor there. If DDG can clarify this with more than a condescending statement, it would be more constructive to provide evidence. Over the course of history, there are thousands of faculty members and supporters of UC Berkeley. Only 100 of these people are named Berkeley Fellows. With respect to the Citation Award, this is given to one person per year for which everyone who is ever been associated with the CNR either as a student, faculty, alumni, or friend, can be selected. The selection committee is totally blind and does not take any favors. The Career Achievement Award is for one faculty or graduate student member for scientific contributions. The selection committee is also totally blind and does not take any favors.

2. DDG does not understand the prestige of receiving this award simply because DDG does not understand the honor process in academia. In other words, DDG does not have any expertise nor the competency to determine which awards are minor. It is worth noting that DDG has attended UC Berkeley and should understand how major these awards are. There might be a conflict of interest due to DDG's affiliation with UC Berkeley's CNR, whether he has a negative intention towards Rausser and CNR. If DDG can pinpoint which awards he considers "minor awards," I will be more than happy to explain why it is not. Furthermore, this is an insult to the UC Berkeley institution as well as to Gordon Rausser. In the future, DDG should provide reasoning and evidence before making such outlandish statements and a request for the deletion of a Wikipedia page with all the necessary sources and citations.

Choielliotjwa (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent most of my life in academia, including some of it in Berkeley. Significant awards are those given by an outside organization for a major body of work. In-house awards are basically an exercise in public relations, and therefore of low significance in general. I agree that perhaps the very highest ones from Berkeley might have some importance. (I'm not about to deny the quality of the university that gave me my own doctorate), but its not the degree of significance that would demonstrate notability. But they are much less significant than awards from major outside professional societies, and Rauscher has enough of them to prove his great importance. Of the awards from Berkeley:

  • "Builder of Berkeley" is an award for giving them money.
  • In 2004, Rausser was awarded the Citation Award from UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources this is not their top level award (he did win their top level award, in addition, so why mention this?)
  • a member of UC Berkeley's Board of Trustees. -- we don't now include such memberships in any article for anyone; (many articles still have them from our earlier days when we were less careful)
  • chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Economics and All Economic Programs Evaluation Committee. -- this is academic service, but not an award

But it's not just the awards from Berkeley. Awards for being the best article in a wide subject field are significant.

...

But awards for being the best article in a particular journal in a particular year are relatively trivial.

  • In 2014, Rausser was awarded the “Best Private Enforcement Academic Article” from the American Antitrust Institute[12][13].

....

Being on the editorial board of a journal is trivial. Being the editor in cheif is significant. Rauscher was indeed editor in chief of a major journal, which is part of what proves him notable ,

but the list also includes ones where he was just one of an editor borard or "an editor". ....

There are three reasons for including minor honors:

  1. There's not enough major -- this doesn't appply here. There are plenty of major distinctions
  2. One is writing a CV -- for an official academic CV in the US the current required practice is to include everything, down to individual lectures and classes. But Wikipedia does not publish CVs/.
  3. One is resorting to puffery, to make someone appear even more important than they are. -- But Rauscher is quite important, and all such a list does is detract from focussing on the really major distinction he has earned. Writing an academic bio and making this error is characteristic of PR people, who are used to being expansive as they can get away with, to people writing or directing the writing of their autobiography, or to newcomers here who copy the promotionalism they see , which we acceptedi n earlier days and are still in the process of removing. What we certainly don't need is more of it!

unfinished--to be continued tomorrow but it's too late in the night to keep working on it now. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Gordon Rausser. Why wasn't this just a merge discussion? Notable awards should be listed, others removed. Dream Focus 08:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gordon Rausser. I note this target already includes a paragraph summarising his awards, so it may be that there is nothing to merge if every single thing on this list is deemed insignificant. That is a content decision for editors of the main article though.----Pontificalibus 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oddly, the paragraph in the main article left out

  • "In 1993, Rausser was selected as a fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science"

which by our standards -- and most people in the academic world-- is the highest honour of everything in the long list., and most of the ones in the para are described very vaguely: "twenty boards of directors" . Looking a little more broadly at the article, it mentions his honors, but not his science. I notice they're in Draft:List of selected works by Gordon Rausser, where they seem to be listed by broad subject, ignoring whether they're a book (there are 6 of them) , a peer-reviewed journal article, or just a published report--or even an unpublished "position paper" (some of them "confidential") The main article needs complete rewriting. He's an economist, not a natural scientist, but I could do it if no other established volunteer editor does. There seems to be COI, tho I can not determine its nature. There's an interesting version by the curret ed. at [1] DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have taken DDG’s point of the Builder of Berkeley award and the Board of Trustees award and deleted them from the list. Objectively, it does seem like a promotional award for no merit except a flair of wealth, and to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines, the Trustee position has also been deleted. I have also changed the College of Natural Resources award to the highest Career Achievement Award.

With the comments from Pontificalibus and DreamFocus, I also propose the awards and honor list be moved to the main article. I assure Pontificalibus that the whole list is not insignificant; on the contrary, the majority if not all, are significant and noteworthy.

However, with the other awards, there is one crucial point: it is not up to DDG to judge whether an award is trivial or minor.

An editorship of an academic journal is not something academia gives away to everyone. The American Antitrust Institute, in which DDG calls their awards “trivial,” is an extremely important non-profit think-tank that is at the forefront of antitrust enforcement for big companies. To call such a prestigious institution is extremely worrying. If this was a “trivial” journal with no impact factors, objectively, this would be minor.

In a comparison, an editor-in-chief is more prestigious than an associate editor. Another comparison shows that an associate editor is more prestigious than a guest editor. Another comparison shows that a guest editor is more prestigious than a writer. Another comparison shows that a writer is more prestigious than a non-writer. RELATIVELY and OBJECTIVELY, an editorship at a renowned academic journal is indeed a honor.

The proposed three reasons DDG states for the justification of minor awards seem somewhat redundant, as DDG rules out two of the reasons and the aforementioned Wikipedia page is not an official CV as it does not include individual lectures or classes. This is not a CV, and this contention seems like an irrelevant red herring to fallaciously strengthen DDG’s point.

As to “completely revising” the main article, the reason simply does not make sense. Because he’s an economist and not a scientist the article has to be revised? What’s the difference between an economist’s Wikipedia page and a scientist’s Wikipedia’s page? The Draft:List of selected works by Gordon Rausser should be disregarded. Why does DDG want to completely revise the main article after it had passed the neutrality guidelines? With a ridiculous contention and irrelevant and even more ridiculous reason, DDG’s COI as well as his past work should be audited and reviewed. Choielliotjwa (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cascina Caradonna[edit]

Cascina Caradonna (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 and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage but nothing else. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NBIO. Sources mostly relate to being a face model for a videogame (so WP:BLP1E also potentially applies). Therefore it is not a promising sign that Caradonna is not even mentioned in the article for the game. 1292simon (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO nor WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. Most likely WP:TOOSOON. She may become more notable with time, but not right now. Pamzeis (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drivill[edit]

Drivill (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 company. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 21:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cunninghams[edit]

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

Article is mostly the work of a member of the band described and sourced entirely to their personal knowledge. Article has been tagged for 12 years with no substantial improvement for WP:OR, WP:COI, and notability. WP:BEFORE finds only a AllMusic band bio and an old Deseret News article that meet the significant/independent/reliable test. The previous AfD claimed multiple RS but on inspection, none of those would be well-received as RS today. Two RS makes GNG notability very borderline and I find no evidence that any of the criteria under WP:BAND apply. The possibility of mergers or redirects is limited as the most likely targets already redirect to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which sources did you object to? The album article was redirected earlier this year; the band and/or album are covered by AllMusic, Trouser Press, Tulsa World, Washington City Paper, Musician, Arizona Republic, Billboard, Deseret News. If COI is a problem, just have an album article... Caro7200 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Tulsa World article is a bundle CD review that spends all of four sentences actually talking about the band in question or its music. The Billboard "article" is nothing more than a picture caption that doubles as a signing announcement. The Trouser Press article is another capsule review. the Washington City Paper is just an gig announcement. Please identify (or, better yet, link to) the Musician and Arizona Republic articles. The problem all these have is that they are not WP:SIGCOV. Even taken together, they demonstrate existence and little else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of album reviews are "capsule" reviews...perhaps your real objection is to the existence of short articles? The previous AfD closed as no consensus, but with a suggestion that the article be rewritten...all of the above sources can be used to craft a short article. Caro7200 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to tell me what my "real" objection is when I've explicitly spelled it out with references and links to policy. With the sole exception of the Deseret News article, all the sources available are very short and do not demonstrate significant coverage. There is no reason to continue to carry an article, of whatever length, that basically says: "This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album." Hundreds of other bands could say the same or similar but neither they nor this one have had any real impact. Notability exists as a standard for a reason. Also a correction: the previous AfD closed with the statement that there was a very clear consensus that the article need a rewrite at a minimum. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another correction: I posed a question, I did not try to tell you anything. And these sources could very much be used to construct an article that says something beyond "'This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album.'" A band or an album is notable if enough coverage exists in independent, reliable sources. Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are five reliable sources covering this band in at least a paragraph and combined that passes WP:GNG. Also the nominator seems to imply that the first AFD was years ago when it was in fact only last March. There is no valid reason at all to delete this article,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly unsalvageable considering it is one paragraph long and there are five reliable sources giving it at least a paragraph each, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One scant paragraph here and there hardly constitutes enough "in-depth" sources for the purpose of claiming notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage lacks substance. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Ton Chicken[edit]

Ten Ton Chicken (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:NBAND. I was unable to find any reliable sources that cover this group. W42 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. W42 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure we have enough - I will think on this. The Allmusic bio is not an independent reliable source. But two of Atlantic's sources (The book and the State Hornet source) seem reliable and perhaps independent and more than passing mention. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Actually, Allmusic is a reliable source when the band has a biography and not just a listing of the trivial facts and a discography. It is also a reliable site when an album has a staff written review (user generated ones does not count). When these things aren't present (the biography page is blank, the album page is just a track listing and maybe some user reviews are there) it isn't reliable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, GhostDestroyer100 re: AllMusic staff bio's, FWIW, there was an AFD nomination a while back where a staff written bio was a cut and paste from the subject's website. They are unabashed in requesting and accepting promotional materials to aid them in maintaining content, and some "staff" (most are freelancers, actually--who work with minimal editorial oversight) are, to put it simply, lazy in sourcing independent references. The site is increasingly inconsistent in pursuit of their stated goal of cataloging and providing information for any and everything in the Rovi database. I think editors should treat each subject on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket "It's an AllMusic staff article so it passes..." ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure the cut and paste wasn't the other way around? Anyway have you any sources for your criticisms of AllMusic or is it just guesswork? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on what I've seen, this band seems to be too provincial and therefore does not deserve a Wikipedia page. Maqdisi117 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Sofer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yehoshua Sofer (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 notable. The article was nominated a year ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehoshua Sofer, and was kept due to no consensus, but later most of the users who supported to keep the article were found to be socks. P. S. Looking at Abir, his personal martial art style, articles about which were created in many minor wikies with low inclusion standards, it looks like there is a PR activity around Sofer. Wikisaurus (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the sources covering him are reliable. So he is an off-beat character. So what? From the number of write-ups about him, he is notable. See no reason to delete.Geewhiz (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am leaning towards delete. Most of the sources I could find mention him only in passing. For example, he's mentioned once in a list in a two volume encyclopedia on hip-hop and the other references are also quite weak. The only two sources that seem to have some depth are the ones in the Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post. That might meet the most generous interpretation of WP:GNG since it can be argued that two is "multiple". The problem I have with that is both articles are about his made-up martial art and that would usually merit a quick verdict on WP that he is a non-notable martial artist. It's hard to believe his claims that he was the sole student of a secret Jewish martial art that's thousands of years old. That's especially hard given his being born in Jamaica and brought up in California. The notability question seems to hinge on whether or not he passes WP:GNG. I think I fall just on the other side of the GNG fence from the comment in the first AfD discussion that said "I think he's a total con-man and is generally not-legit, but I do think that he's a GNG-passing con-man." However, I'll admit my feelings are not very strong which is why I haven't voted yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it squeaks past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Barely meets this, but past the line.   // Timothy :: talk  13:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jupiter[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom for not meeting notability standards. Balle010 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as did find significant coverage here but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilievich[edit]

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

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandrovna, we do not want pages that serve as navigational aids (whether you call them WP:Disambiguation pages or WP:Name pages) for non-surname patronymics.

Per my rationale in that discussion, this article is similar to if The Elder (disambiguation) listed everyone called "[Name] the Elder" (Cato the Elder, Seneca the Elder, Julia the Elder, Edward the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Osorkon the Elder, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder and so on) or if The Third (disambiguation) listed everyone called "[Name] III" (Pedro III of Kongo, William III of England, Robert III of Scotland, Charles III of Spain, Gustav III, Nicholas III of Saint Omer, Albert III, Duke of Austria, Anna III, Abbess of Quedlinburg, Christian III of Denmark, Joan III, Countess of Burgundy, Margaret III, Countess of Flanders, and so on). It would be a similarly bad idea to have an article called Nikolaevich and list everyone from Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia to Leo Tolstoy and Boris Yeltsin. The problem, as was pointed out in the previous discussion, is that these people would never be referred to as simply "Vasilievich", "the Elder", "the Third", or "Nikolaevich", respectively. Hence, it doesn't fulfil the purpose of a disambiguation page (nor a name page, as those deal with given names and surnames, and this is neither). An WP:Alternative to deletion could be to redirect this to Eastern Slavic naming customs, as is currently done for Alexandrovich. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ndukwe Onuoha[edit]

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

spammy autobio about a non-notable person, only sources are PR types and passing mentions, nothing that indicates actual notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & fails to satisfy any known notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. There's no significant coverage to indicate notability. Less Unless (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. In 2006, this could have been excused, but in 2020, everybody knows we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have added two references, one of which provides in-depth coverage, but that article makes it clear that Onuoha invited the journalists to hear his latest album and I don't think the coverage is therefore independent of the subject. As a seasoned PR professional, he knows what he's doing. But the appeal on the article talk page that he is important, and accusing editors of racial prejudice, doesn't help. SPA, COI editor with clear, close links to the subject, certainly UPE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Cloutier[edit]

Sylvie Cloutier (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 clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I think I need to spend a bit more time on notability guidelines for academics. PepperBeast (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPROF C1. The case isn't quite as clear as it looks at first glance -- the subject's most highly-cited papers have an extremely large number of coauthors, and to further complicate things, there is another scientist of the same name who works in a nearby field. I see several highly-cited papers with the subject as first or last author (in a field where I believe that matters), however, and I think it's enough. FWIW, Mendeley profile [2] is perhaps easier to look at than Google Scholar search results. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 372, 347, 324, 260, 251, 247, 161, 137, 135, 125, etc., with three of these top ten having her as first author. This is enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RW and DE. Nom may wish to consult WP:NPROF further, as many of their recent noms appear to clear that threshold rather easily. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:NPROF C1. Besides the impressive top-10 cited works all being over 100 citation, the next page of results also has 100+ citation papers and the 20th paper is as 73.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF - uncertain why this was even nominated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has won an award which passes WP:ANYBIO and she also passes WP:NPROF. Pamzeis (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia doesn't much like political candidates, but it sure does like academics. Sandstein 20:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bean[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be notable as a politician, and the existence of an entirely normal and unremarkable amount of campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to claim a GNG-based exemption from that. To be exempted from having to win the election first, she would have to either (a) demonstrate a credible reason why her candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, or (b) demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of her candidacy -- but the claim of preexisting notability here is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, etc.) rather than notability-making reliable sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder" -- but being a candidate does not secure inclusion in Wikipedia by itself, and nothing stated in the article earns her special treatment over and above other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. She obviously doesn't pass WP:NPOL and if kept her article should be edited to reflect that. But I found (and added to the article) plenty of reviews for her book, and she has another highly-cited co-authored book chapter ("Cultural mechanisms and killing fields", in The Many Colors of Crime), giving her a borderline case for WP:PROF despite her assistant-professor rank. An alternative possibility, possibly helpful in preventing this from being an election soapbox, would be to create an article on the book (which has enough reviews to appear independently notable) and redirect this article there pending the outcome of the election. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF based on the citation record of her works (see Google Scholar profile) and the notable book she authored (multiple independent reviews). I've attempted to restructure the article to focus on these points as alluded to by Eppstein above. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:PROF MoonlightTulsi (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (GMT)
  • Weak keep for WP:PROF, not WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. I found coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, Vox, GBooks, JStor, Stanford and a couple of specialist sites. scope_creepTalk 10:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was created to advance her candidacy. Her academic credentials are not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as restructured by TJMSmith. With a well-reviewed book, a decent citation profile and some press attention to her research (e.g., [3]), there's a reasonable case for WP:PROF entirely independently of her run for the Texas state house. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets PROF but more importantly GNG with coverage of the book. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Directorates of the Scottish Government. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy and External Affairs Directorates[edit]

Strategy and External Affairs Directorates (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 topic is not notable. The article has not been substantively edited since 2016 and is out of date, and is little more than a list of appointments and post-holders, and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Another article Directorates of the Scottish Government adequately covers the material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Barone[edit]

Rosie Barone (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 real indication of notability, and no sources. PepperBeast (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 08:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat[edit]

Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat (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:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a notable personality in Pakistan. I have added some more information about him in the article. Instead of proposing for deletion, adding some information about the subject is useful. The person is a deputy commissioner of Islamabad capital territory of Pakistan. There are several pages of similar biographies like this one of Steve_House_(police_officer). GreatWikian (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi O'Donnell-Ames[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable, mention the subject briefly and no wide coverage. Google search of her does not show in-depth significant coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This runs afould of the guidlines that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google search reveals nine pages of articles and discussion about O'Donnell-Ames and her work. The article has no intention of serving a function like that of LinkedIn—the accomplishment of being the first person in the U.S. to establish a non-profit for the children of ALS patients is significant, and no work opportunities are being sought out. Her work is referenced in the article Hope Loves Company. Perhaps this article (or portions of it) can be merged into Hope Loves Company, but this page does contain notable, reliable articles about accomplishments significant enough to warrant its own space, as well as enough notable sources and proof of accolades to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. User:Newjersey20 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the above editor is the creator of the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment the above editor is the nominator of the AfD for this article. That's about how much relevance that statement makes. Argue policy not prejudice.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination: there's simply nothing here that would pass WP:ANYBIO. I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Hope Loves Company, but having taken a look at that page, I've started an AfD discussion for it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is an author who has written published works. An advocate for those suffering with ALS. She has been the topic of many primary and secondary reliable sources including newspapers and other media outlets. She has won awards for her contributions to the ALS community. A simple Google search reveals just how impactful she has been on a segment of our world population suffering from this terrible disease. She soars above the line called WP:GNG.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment difficult to lend any support whatsoever to keeping this article. It has the prototypical qualities of wikipedia-as-venue-for-PR-fluff, such as the throw-away single-purpose account making just exactly enough edits to lauch a perfectly formed article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newjersey20 - and the PR photo claimed as "own work" by the article author - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jodi_O%27Donnell-Ames_2020.jpg (which is either an indicator of COI, or a lie, or both) - and the hyper-detailed hagiographic narrative knit from sparse PR fluff sources. Google isn't exactly falling over itself to disgorge reliable sources meeting GNG. Google news has a few pages of miserable PR fluff. My view is that the best interests of wikipedia will be met by deleting articles such as this. We owe no favours to sub-border-line-notable individuals who seek to use wikipedia for their ends, rather than contributing to wikipedia for its ends. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love ya Tagishsimon but we disagree here. This is a woman who is influential within a very specific community and on a very important topic. What you stated in your comment is an opinion. Opinions should be shared but they do not supersede policy. I have shared my opinion on many occasions here. The most compelling are when it links with policy. Does she meet the requirements of WP:GNG? Yes! The picture provided is another thing entirely. It could be that it is incorrectly tagged or it might be a copyright issue. That does not keep her from being notable. On principle and policy she passes, opinions on the style of wording in the article only apply if you can prove it is written with a distinct bias or if you can prove there is a COI. Outside of proof, the claims made are no more relevant than me saying the moon is made of cheese. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per WP:SIGCOV based on multiple sources. A merge to Hope Loves Company is another possibility. I trimmed and reformatted the article to remove WP:PROMO. TJMSmith (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While this person's work is quite admirable, there are two problems: notability and COI. The sourcing is weak: 1. local college newsletter (trivial); 2. Primary (interview); 3. local Fox channel human interest story; 4. primary (interview) on Authority Magazine's website it states "Where to send a pitch" and..."Are you an expert in your field who has information to share with the public? Authority Mag has a paid program called "Thought Leader Incubator" in other words this seems like pay-to-play; 5. People Mag: OK; 6. Mercer Me: self-disclosed "hyper-local news outlet" (trivial); 7. & 8. Alumni award and newsletter (trivial). That just leaves Fox and People (not the most reliable sources IMO, but they pass). Does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Re: COI...it has all the marks of a PR firm's creation: promotional tone (now tempered); padding references with trivia and primary sources; WP:SPA editor (with 41 total edits) has created two articles...this one and the one for her company both perfectly formed; the smoking gun is the studio-shot PR photo by the article creator, who by the way also claims that her company's logo is their "own work" on O'Donnell-Ames' Hope Loves Company article. Quite a bit of evidence this is UPE/COI. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Note: You denied to mention the two published and independently reviewed books she authored. That has to be taken into account as reliable sources of notability. Getting a book through the publishing process with an independent publisher, let alone two, is an accomplishment that speaks to notability.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any book reviews. She definitely does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, which is why I did not mention it above. She has written two books published by 1. Open Door Publishing - from their website: "Coaching: $150 per one-hour session or $400 for three one-hour sessions." and "In addition we offer consulting services, at $100 per hour, for do-it-yourself author who just needs a little advice on the intricacies of publishing." 2. The other book publisher is "People Tested Media" the motto on their website is "Our Readers are not Dummies!" and "We’re not a self publishing mill! We don’t provide publishing consulting services! You won’t end up with a garage full of books or the need to view a lot of self help videos that actually take time away from your ability to tell your tale!" This does not instill a lot of confidence in the presses. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please post links here to the "independent book reviews" that you have refered to above? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: That's a facepalm for me, borderline double facepalm. Jodi O'Donnell, not to be confused with the subject, is a well known and reviewed author writing over 13 books and literary pieces. The names can get confusing. I still think she passes notability within the ALS community and receives significant enough coverage in multiple sources to back this claim up. SO I stick to my original statement. Accusations of COI/paid contributions/PR stunts should be only considered as irrelevant opinion until proof is found and does this woman a huge disservice for the work she has and continues to accomplish.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since everyone wants to throw around their "supposed" expert opinion as fact, has anyone asked the editor if they are a paid contributor? I mean, are we just going to consider the "good faith" only applies when it's in our personal favor or goes along with our own personal opinions?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Since my fellow Wikipedians are so afraid to do any research to back of their claims here I wanted to inform you all that I have asked the creator if they have any affiliation with Jodi O'Donnell-Ames or Hope Loves Company on the user talk page. Subject to the answers, I will ask about the pictures on Wikimedia Commons. This is the type of investigative work that should be thoroughly checked prior to making assertions that are unsupported by verifiable proof.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to any potential closer of this AfD. I ask that seven additional days be allowed, after whatever decision is made, for the original creator of the article to answer my requests for comment on their talk page. I will endeavor to determine whether this person is a paid contributor or there is a COI issue regarding this article. IF that is the case then I move to have the article on Jodi and the article on the organization be draftified and allow myself and other editors to bring it to a place where it can be merged into one article for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The organization is most assuredly notable and there is precedent for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in which the argument was made that the organization didn't deserve to be included because they are "a bunch of fakes". That is not reason enough for exclusion. Neither is the argument that this is a COI PR stunt article based on opinion. Few verifiable sources were provided but it was enough in that case. Likewise there are enough verifiable sources to conclude that Jodi and/or the organization she founded is notable and worth inclusion in the encyclopedia. I will make the same request on the AfD for the organization.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Suitcase Junket[edit]

The Suitcase Junket (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 appear to be a notable performer who meets WP:BAND standards. Creator is a disclosed paid editor and the article’s tone seems to reflect a promotional nature. only (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional tone aside, non-trivial coverage in the Boston Globe and with NPR meet the 2 significant sources criteria, plus a release on a decent independent label. There is some lesser stuff, too, but it's mostly run of he mill/interview/and blog type stuff. This one barely clears the notability bar, but I think it's okay. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The Boston Globe article appears to be predominantly an interview, which is precluded under WP:MUSICBIO - except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. When this is discounted, there's not enough coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dom Kaos - without the Boston Globe interview the coverage is too minimal to hit NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bindu Babu[edit]

Bindu Babu (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 Quantum Based Transformational Life Coach, Past Life Regression Therapist & Intuitive Reiki healer. Yeesh. Little media coverage. Article is basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I first came across this article when it was a draft. It was moved into mainspace, bypassing the AfC process, and I had immediate concerns about notability and promotion, but it took me some time to work through the references, debunk the claims that Babu makes about herself, and tag the issues or edit the content, such as to make it clear that she's been nominated for those awards rather than won them. It became clear that the awards she has been nominated for are the sort that you can nominate yourself for, if you don't mind paying the ticket prices for a table at the award ceremony. The Forbes Council also takes self-nominations and clearly doesn't fact check. Early versions of her standard blurb for example say she had spoken at Harvard, whereas in reality she had spoken at a conference that took place at an event facility on the Harvard campus. The 'PhD' she has comes from a 'university' with no physical campus and where exams in degree courses are multi-choice, computer based, taken at home and with the ability to re-sit the following day if you fail. Her blurb included that she had qualified with the World Health Organisation in COVID response planning, but all it took was three hours of self-paced training and an online test which hundreds of thousands of people had completed. All in all this person has tried hard to market themselves and I am sure this Wikipedia article is part of that effort. You may be wondering why I haven't already nominated the article for deletion. I think it serves readers to read about the reality of Babu's claims, in a case of WP:LUC. Once deleted, it will live on forever in Deletionpedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot better Curb Safe Charmer's analysis. Spamcruftisement. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first 4 references are her own sites. scope_creepTalk 11:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI'm a the creator of Bindu Babu's article. I wrote her article when I'm not fully well understand with notability, it was when I the draft moved to main space, I realized that most the references are independent secondary reliable source. And by virtue that some editors are accusing me for been paid for the article as I know I have no connection with her.
I'm hundred percent willing for deletion of this page because she is not notable to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that substantial edits have been made by editors other than the creating editor. This AfD must run its course, please rather than opting for speedy deletion at the request of the creator. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haken (band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jennings (singer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician notable as a member of a band, not reliably sourced as having sufficient standalone notability independently of the band to qualify for his own standalone BLP. As always, every member of a band is not automatically entitled to his own separate biographical article just because he exists -- what has to be shown is that he gets over WP:GNG as an individual, by virtue of having received his own media coverage independently of the band as a whole. But the sources here are not reliable or notability-building ones: four are his and the band's own self-published web presence on their own website and social networking or music sales platforms, two are directory entries in databases, and the two that are marginally acceptable still just briefly namecheck Ross Jennings' existence in the process of being primarily about other people. All of which means that exactly zero of the footnotes are reliable or notability-making sources about Ross Jennings, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haken (band): a Google search shows that he's generally described as "Haken's Ross Jennings" or similar, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage of him that's independent of the band. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haken (band) - That band has achieved notability, but this singer's activities outside the band have not, and his solo article is dependent on sources that are actually about Haken. His solo article can be revived in the future if that aspect of his career takes off. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haken. He may become notable enough one day to be worth a separate article, but not yet. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 00:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Haken (band). This didn't really need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Graundfote[edit]

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

Rather obscure 15th century Member of Parliament. Article relies on a single source, and I couldn't locate any other mentions of this person. PepperBeast (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of the House of Commons. Passes NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it the nom's contention that this article is not verifiable? It's based on a biographical dictionary published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, so I'd say it's reliable. I can't think of any other reason to delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Enos and Aleatory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Members of national legislatures/parliaments are default notable, and the one source is reliable enough to verrify that Graundfote existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes NPOL. I've tracked down the single source this article is based on using Google - it's a book from 1936 which cites other reliable sources in the research (though those sources look primary, we'd be worse off as an encyclopaedia if we deleted this one.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete or redirect !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 17:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitte Bak-Jensen[edit]

Birgitte Bak-Jensen (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 clear indication of notability. Couldn't find any significant media coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I think I need to spend a bit more time on notability guidelines for academics. PepperBeast (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Bain[edit]

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

PROD correctly removed because it had already had a PROD before. My concern still remains. Fails WP:NFOOTY as footballer hasn't appeared in a fully pro league or had a full international cap. The complete lack of significant coverage indicates that this fails WP:GNG also. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. the external link says almost nothing. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice (See following Comment) - No one has been able to show me where Wikipedia ever said "fully" professional anything. I am still waiting and I think I will be waiting forever because it isn't there. The use of the word "fully" professional is used by deletionist to advocate the removal of hundreds of articles based on their personal opinion, and op-ed style written essays, not wikipedia policy. I have no issue and never will have issue with debating and discussing policy. This player plays/played in the top professional women's league in Australia. That is supported by wikipedia policy as the exact wording of the policy says "top professional". A written essay can not supercede the primary or secondary wikipedia guidelines. She meets WP:NFOOTY, as a professional player semi or otherwise, but does not meet WP:GNG as no reliable sources were given. For that I say delete until reliable sources are brought forward.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY is an essay to be used as a guide only. I'm perfectly happy with most of the articles on Australian female footballers, even though a lot of them technically fail NFOOTY. There are, however, a handful that are completely unsourced and a BEFORE search has turned up next to nothing on those occasions. Those have been given a PROD in the same way that we often propose to delete articles on many male footballers that may scrape through the NFOOTY criteria by the skin of their teeth but comprehensively fail GNG. The idea of NFOOTY is, I think, fully professional leagues tend to get more coverage than semi-pro ones so there is a presumption that players that have played in them should have GNG coverage but, of course, this is often not the case and there are many players that fail NFOOTY that meet GNG. Spiderone 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of this particular case and recant my statement that she passes NFOOTY. She does not. I also agree that NFOOTY can be used as reference but I find it is used in these AfD's almost as policy to initiate deletions and complete decisions are made on the basis of that claim alone. I have seen it. To me this is fallacy to take an essay and present it as a definitive arguing point rather than a point of reference. The fact it fails WP:NFOOTY is of no relevance to policy than any other opinion or essay out there on Wikipedia. The fact it fails WP:GNG is the determining factor in this case and all others.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska: Point 2 of the notability criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association_football (usually linked at WP:NFOOTY) states "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". Contrary to what Spiderone says, this is not an essay, it is a formal notability guideline (I think they might be referring to WP:FPL, which is a referenced list of what leagues are fully professional). Number 57 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: NFOOTY is an essay, not wikipedia policy. It carries no more weight than an OP-ED in a newspaper, tbh. It can be used as a reference which means it also can be ignored entirely when making a decision. Come with something better or your attempts to delete this article are not based on policy but opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've clearly demonstrated in my links above, it is not an essay, it is a notability guideline. If you cannot understand this basic concept, you should not be participating in AfDs. Number 57 12:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not going to do a WP:BEFORE. If they are relying on nfooty to make the grade, then i'm not wasting my time. No effective references. scope_creepTalk 11:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Had a look at the Age/Sydney Morning Herald archvie, NewsBank, ProQuest and EBSCOhost and there's nothing meaningful beyond a couple of name-checks in match reports. Hack (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage and has not played in professional matches. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Gordon and Franc Cano[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parag Shirnamé[edit]

Parag Shirnamé (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 that his position as a commissioner was notable, and I see no evidence he meets any other criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman and government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough coverage for notability.--Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an internet search doesn't yield anything substantial Spiderone 22:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sperry[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage of this person. He fails notability and there is virtually nothing from secondary sources on which to build a WP article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if he is notable enough.....but he has written a number of OP-EDs that have appeared in RS. These were in the article until today [4]Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:FRINGEBLP without the coverage we require for biographies of that sort. His biggest claim to fame is being retweeted by Trump, who retweets a lot of people. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)[edit]

Ashley Williams (Mass Effect) (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 non-notable fictional character, with no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines. No real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge this character did provoke some amount of conversation, including reliable third party sources. I could see someone debating the level of detail of that coverage and if it warrants a full article like this. Her significance should be covered somewhere even if it is small. Jontesta (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to easily pass GNG. Even if certain sources are not reliable (and then should be removed) there still appears to be plenty to keep the article. Rhino131 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "In praise - and defence - of Ashley Williams, the most contentious character in BioWare’s sci-fi epic" appeared in Xbox: The Official Magazine and republished on Gamesradar; this is a full-length article discussing the character directly and in detail. "The Right Choice In Mass Effect: Kaidan Alenko" from Venturebeat discusses the character directly and in detail, comparing her role in the story to another character. Some of the other sources are listicles, which I think don't add much to notability, but the Gamesradar/XBox Magazine and VentureBeat sources are legit. The nominator's casual nomination rationale claims that there's "no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines", but doesn't explain why these sources fail SIGCOV. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high quality article, good research and writing was done here. Great job overall to the Wikipedia contributors to this article page. Right cite (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. The reception section seems ok, and I wonder why the nominator is ignoring it and not discussing it in any detail? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lazy nomination; either nominator didn't actually read the article or its sources, or it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the very least, why the current sources are inadequate should have been discussed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant keep, these numerous nominations of fictional characters have gotten way out of hand. This is obviously a notable character with a decent article.★Trekker (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: I could see how someone might say that there's issues with WP:DUE weight, with editors overemphasizing certain primary (or even secondary) sources too much. But aside from too much detail and weight in certain statements, I see no issues with this article. There's lots of good references to pass AFD with flying colors. It looks like it even has the potential to be a good article one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Akhtar[edit]

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

Unlikely to meet WP:GNG, no matter how funny his run-in with Claude Littner was. Launchballer 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamo Davide Romano[edit]

Adamo Davide Romano (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 appears to be exaggerated paid for spam. He had a popular fb page but there's virtually no reliable, in depth coverage of it. I removed several sources which were low quality, click bait blog spam and tried to do a search for critical reviews of his books, of which I can find none. Fails WP:NAUTHOR Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a website you pay your way into, we are not Who's Who.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or NAUTHOR.   // Timothy :: talk  13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelis Leptos[edit]

Pantelis Leptos (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 before search shows a hits in unreliable sources which have no reputable for fact checking. Generally, subject of the article lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails the GNG test. WP:ANYBIO is also not satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could not find significant independent coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed for BLPs.   // Timothy :: talk  03:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon in India[edit]

Pokemon in India (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 completely unwarranted article simply because the show is NOT an original Indian series. Syndication of a series in another country, even if it is popular does not require a separate article. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if articles were created for each and every country's broadcast for a magnum opus like Game of Thrones. The painfully long History section of the article basically notes each season's and in some places even each episode's telecast across networks in India and the rest of it is general coverage of each Pokemon movie's Indian title and broadcast network. In this case, the presence of sources does not automatically confer notability as most of it is marketing material. The article has already been deleted and recreated twice in the past one year without any major changes other than the title.[5][6] Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:RPRGM and WP:SPLIT.

PS: A redirect to any other article will be completely useless as the article is heavily edited by what looks like fans of the show and will likely be removed almost instantaneously.

Courtesy pings to the active editors involved at the previous Afd discussions; @Sergecross73:, @Spiderone:, @Red Phoenix:, @AngusWOOF:, @Ravensfire:, @KingSkyLord:, @Begoon: and @Praxidicae: TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Nothing has changed from prior AFDs. There’s no reason for this to be split out for India. It’s big there, but no bigger or different than any other country or region. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; marketing material is not evidence of notability; lacks evidence to justify a separate article Spiderone 15:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Show is in syndication and did not originate there for the English adaptation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt into oblivion. Completely unwarranted content split. Hog Farm Bacon 17:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G4 and G11. Purely trivial fancruft. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – it will always blow my mind how these kind of articles even exist in the first place Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete this article should not delete because this article gives people trusted and faithful information. Chikukiri (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2020 (IST)
  • Delete and salt as this article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon anime in India and re-created. I agree with everything the nominator has put forward as well as the rationales provided in the last clear consensus deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as a recreation of the original article. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 10:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect can be optionally created, but this is perhaps not the most likely search term. Sandstein 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon in India[edit]

Doraemon in India (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 completely unwarranted article simply because the show is NOT an original Indian series. Syndication of a series in another country, even if it is popular does not require a separate article. The History section of this article, which is the only thing notable in the entire page has already been covered under the Reception section of the series article. The rest of it is general coverage of each Doraemon movie's Indian title and broadcast network. In this case, the presence of sources does not automatically confer notability as most of it is marketing material. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:RPRGM and WP:SPLIT.

PS: A redirect to any other article will be completely useless as the article is heavily edited by what looks like fans of the show and will likely be removed almost instantaneously.

Courtesy ping to @Spiderone: for their help in making this assessment. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and no need for the excessive listing of release dates for Disney Channel and Hungama. Any well sourced and notable info can be merged to the main Doraemon article but it looks like this is already adequately covered so outright deletion is the best option here in my view Spiderone 14:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is nothing to indicate that the franchise's airing in other countries like this is notable enough to warrant any kind of WP:SPLIT to a separate article. As stated, the only information potentially worth saving is already present on the main Doraemon article, and this is not a useful term for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, article is little more than a list of release dates. I do however find it very interesting that this article has 80,000 views a month, which is more than the article on Doraemon has. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DO NOT DELETE' this article is helpful for people who cannot access the channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E16:E1A3:2877:2DB:B302:E194 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pure fancruft. Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete this page should be not deleted because this page gives people a faithful information about this show that people can trust. So I request not to delete this page.Chikukiri (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (IST)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect optional. Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skywest Golf Course[edit]

Skywest Golf Course (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 golf course. Fails WP:GNG ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuele Mura[edit]

Samuele Mura (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 vlogger, no meaningful coverage and the single few sources are unreliable or black hat SEO. Praxidicae (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and promotional. GiantSnowman 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails to satisfy any notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are essentially 3 articles used as 'evidence' of notability here but they are all borderline PR articles; no evidence to suggest that this person is notable in their field Spiderone 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion makes no sense. Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kya Chahiye Love or Gender[edit]

Kya Chahiye Love or Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. This does not meet NFILM there is no indication of coverage or other claim to notability.
  2. The article is only citing IMDB, aside from that there are two external links: one for a pirating site, the other for an IMDB mirror.
  3. The article is generally incoherent and without any reliable sources, it seems unlikely that can be improved on.
Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a bunch of best and great short movie out there, but they do not appere in many sites some are being sold by the producers to a production company to have the value to it and they send it to film festival, but on the other hand we have independent creators who made a short movie/film and upload it to a public domain like YouTube, both the film festivals film and the YouTube films are not having their data to 2 -10 website they just a imdb page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav op (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, it will be impossible to source this to anything other than IMDb? That's more of a reason to delete than keep Spiderone 07:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yacine Aliane[edit]

Yacine Aliane (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 BlameRuiner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NFOOTY and not seeing any extensive coverage required for GNG Spiderone 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vicious Delite. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Delite (EP)[edit]

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

Limited edition EP, no indication of notability, only reference is Allmusic (i.e. it exists!) Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sogan Kokou[edit]

Sogan Kokou (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 footballer who fails GNG. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY by playing a total of 5 minutes of professional football 8 years ago. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than 5 minutes of professional play to scape by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear GNG failure; almost nothing coming up for him at all on a search; barely any passing mentions let alone actual significant coverage Spiderone 11:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a fully-pro league, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is some only Spanish-language coverage of his signing, but nothing in depth in Spanish or French. Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Throne[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG, self-promo, fails WP:BLP with two dead links and one unsuitable source. The Banner talk 09:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that this is a notable topic, but may benefit from copyediting and potentially renaming. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First images of Earth from space[edit]

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

Arbitrary list of images based on the vague notion of 'first image' (first what, first ten? first fifty?). The subject may be more appropriate for a list article, e.g. List of images of Earth from space, with a table of entries in chronological order, which would immediately give the reader the first N images and all the following ones as well. Deeday-UK (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Now I see what the article's creator was trying to achieve, but the title is so ambiguous and the content so chaotic that I thought the article was hopeless (and it looks like I'm not the only one; therefore, I won't speedy-close this discussion myself).
I suppose the intention was to create a List of firsts in space imaging of Earth, rather than what the current title might as well suggest, i.e. an article about the earliest space images of Earth. Therefore, this article needs not be binned, as far as I'm concerned, but it needs to moved, restructured as a proper list and heavily pruned. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Right now article isn't good, but the subject is notable. A lot can be improved upon. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is merit here, I think the article should be moved to List images of Earth from space I don't know how many there are but they surely must be unique. Or the list could be date-ranged which adds a degree of precision. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep OMG, Wikipedia editors keep surprising me, in the wrong way. This could be a did-you-know feature article but instead someone thinks it's a non-notable subject. Did you try searching for reliable sources? How many do you want with nearly the same title as in the Wikipedia article?
And what about "vague notion" -- there is an article about first photograph and a whole category for firsts in space. The difference between black-and-white photography and color photography was a big deal before it became commonplace. Then there's the difference between sub-orbital flight and Earth-orbiting satellites, and the moon. What else do you need, a caveat about "earliest images of Earth from space... known to humans"? It just blows my mind, starting a deletion nomination instead of a renaming discussion is just overkill. fgnievinski (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as others have said, it is a notable subject. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An encyclopedia entry should have a well-defined topic. This is just a ill-defined list of self-defined "first" images. "First images of Earth from space"? What does that actually mean? Nigej (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable subject, although some cleanup and expanded context might be nice BlackholeWA (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of images of Earth from space. Category:Photographs of Earth from outer space has six entries, so there probably aren't a lot of notable more-general "images". Therefore, an ill-defined "initial" isn't required or wanted. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The six-entry category you mention refers to images from outer space. Any image of Earth taken from orbit could in theory be included in the list you propose, and that's probably hundreds of images, so such list seems to be too broadly defined. The original intention was (I believe) to list only the 'firsts' by some relevant criteria, e.g. first color picture of Earth from space, first photo taken from lunar surface etc., which makes more sense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many notable images, and "firsts" are too open-ended. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean 'too open-ended'? A list of firsts is certainly less open-ended than a generic list of notable images. It is understood that firsts must be notable according to some meaningful criterion; e.g. "The first image of Earth from space taken on a Friday" isn't notable; "The first image of Earth taken from outside the solar system" is. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what's a "notable" first? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject. Something is not arbitrary when its defined as the "first" of something. Follow the sources.★Trekker (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a strong COPYEDIT, some re-org, and additional prose content as opposed to links. The huge LINKFARM at "History," for example, needs to be removed, converted into prose, and added to the article body. These are editing issues though. The subject is interesting and notable, as "first" has a very specific meaning, so perhaps "Early" would be a better title modifier. Anyway, the content can be beefed up and the title adjusted accordingly. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and define list criteria This should be something like "Milestone images of the Earth from space". Qono (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Danielsen[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something, he has only played youth internationals and in the extremely-far-from-professional Faroese football league. Only sources are statistics/trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. majority consensus for Delete, some people indicating a redirect might be approparite, but given the nature of the title, I think this is an unlikely search term. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020)[edit]

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this article meet WP:NOT? or was it just created due to the number of cards issued in the game?

If the latter is the reason, then I suppose matches with the highest number of cards in each top football league in the world should have a wiki page. Josedimaria237 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the match may have attracted attention at the time, but I can't see anything to suggest the long term notability of the match that would meet WP:GNG. The article even states the score was unremarkable, so the article is based on some minor fisticuffs. Not enough for me. Kosack (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SIGCOV is clearly met here. This proposal seems to be an "OTHERSHITDOESNTEXIST" argument, and there's no evidence that the complainant has performed the due diligence of WP:BEFORE. Arguing that "the article is based on some minor fisticuffs" is an absolutely ridiculous deletion rationale. Who gives a flying fuck what it's based on? The game obviously received significant coverage in reliable sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't my deletion rationale at all, so i'd suggest taking it down a notch. My deletion rationale was that there is nothing remarkable about the game that will warrant any significant coverage outside of basic reporting that any match with a potentially controversial flash point receives. More to the point, this article could be more than adequately covered in Le Classique. Kosack (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that wasn't your deletion rationale at all then it was rather foolish to make a statement indicating such. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, I clearly indicated my deletion rationale in the first sentence. I then commented how unremarkable this match actually was. If you think that's notable for an article, then there's only one person looking "foolish" as you say. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale clearly eluded to the fact that articles do not exist for similar matches with high numbers of cards issued. I don't "think" it's notable enough for an article, guidelines say that it is. You didn't strike out entirely though—you are indeed correct that only one of us looks foolish. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never mentioned anything to do with other articles existing or not, so I have no idea what you're talking about there? I never even mentioned cards either? The fact that this is heading for a clear delete/merge consensus doesn't bode well for your understanding of what is notable or not either. Swing and a miss I'm afraid, and it's getting rather tedious. Kosack (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Kosack: I somehow managed to confuse you with another editor. I am most dreadfully embarrassed and I apologize unreservedly. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with/to Le Classique; not independently notable but worth mentioning there (and indeed already is). GiantSnowman 11:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a nice size paragraph at Le Classique about the events so I think a merge is unnecessary. I am not convinced the redirect title will be used by people searching for the (dubbed the "Battle of Paris"). There are surely more sensible redirect options. As this is covered by the Le Classique article I say straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per comments, above. As a non-football fan, I'll try and view this in a neutral light. All I can see is that it was a brawl at the end of the match when most of the red cards were given out. If it was multiple cards through-out the match, at regular intervals in normal time, then I'd be more inclinded to keep, but even that would be a push. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The section at Le Classique is surely sufficient. As WP:N says "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", otherwise we'd have an article on every single top-level football match. Nigej (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Le Classique#Cavani's free-kick, COVID-19 pandemic and "Battle of Paris", the match is already adequately covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched a video on YouTube of the sending offs, typed in battle of Paris into google and ended up on the wiki page with three links and one to this title, it’s a bit confusing why you use the title of the score line. Why do you need this article when there is enough on Le Classique page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:52:46AD:C5D0:9568:4231:3A60 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't see the purpose of a redirect as this isn't a title anyone is ever going to search for. It's not even the game with the most red/yellow cards – only the most in the last 20 years. Number 57 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A section about the match in the Le Classique article is more than enough.--Sakiv (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as others have already stated, this is already covered adequately in Le Classique. This match lacks independent notability. Spiderone 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cover this in summary style in Le Classique and let that be it. – PeeJay 00:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It can be added in Le Classique. I dont think a sepeate page is needed Indianfootball98 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jgerda Church (Adagua mountainous area)[edit]

Jgerda Church (Adagua mountainous area) (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 that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, one of a long series of nearly-identical, unreferenced articles on buildings in Abkhazia for which I can find no coverage online outside of the map reference given. Captain Calm (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I conducted several searches online and found nothing reliable. An old church can be presumed notable, but you still need sources. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khopi Saint Nicholas Church[edit]

Khopi Saint Nicholas Church (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 that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have expanded the text and added a couple of academic sources. --KoberTalk 16:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. There seems to be lots of old newspaper and book references to this church. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chlou Holy Cross Church[edit]

Chlou Holy Cross Church (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 that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, sourced only to a map which contradicts the article title. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per the additions of Kober, the new sources cause this article to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been expanded with the addition of extra sources that seem to be reliable,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable medieval church. I have improved the prose and added additional academic sources. --KoberTalk 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deribb[edit]

Deribb (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 that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non notable musician, possibly WP:TOOSOON. WP:BEFORE fetched similar impression. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and hence should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkingjackson (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Penkingjackson is the page creator. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails to pass general notability criteria and MUSICBIO. The author has created same page under a different title Deribigbe Benson

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Sharma[edit]

Rashmi Sharma (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 covers her production house Rashmi Sharma Telefilms more than it does her. Her production house has indeed produced many notable Indian soap operas but that doesn't transfer notability unto her from her shows or her production house as per WP:INHERITORG. A draft about her production house is currently under works at Afc. This article fails WP:BIO. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Clinesmith[edit]

Kevin Clinesmith (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-WP:MILL lawyer is not notable for his role in a political scandal per WP:BLP1E. One does not become notable by being an FBI agent and falsifying a court document. The article, which was written by a confirmed sockpuppet, reads like a hodgepodge of news clippings and headlines. KidAd talk 02:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durai Sudhakar[edit]

Durai Sudhakar (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:NACTOR and no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG - The9Man (Talk) 07:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He played the lead role in Thappattam,[1] the antagonist in Kalavani 2,[2] and one of the leads in Danny.[3][4] Passes WP:Nactor #1 (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.). TamilMirchi (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dailythanthi.com/Cinema/CinemaNews/2019/08/04125933/From-the-hero-to-the-villain.vpf
  2. ^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/040719/new-baddie-on-the-block-3.html
  3. ^ https://cinema.maalaimalar.com/cinema/cinemanews/2020/08/01132435/1747514/Durai-Sudhakar-attention-of-Danny.vpf
  4. ^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/210719/durai-sudhakars-tryst-with-a-dog.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His first film was a small budget non-notable attempt. A Google search gives hardly any reviews about the film. In other two films he did supporting roles. The subject fails WP:NACTOR. Also the coverages are also majorly promotional articles or interviews. I would say WP:TOOSOON for this. - The9Man (Talk) 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @The9Man: In agreement. Kindly delete the article. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintype[edit]

Quintype (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 of the company apart from routine funding announcements. Fails NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PotCoin[edit]

PotCoin (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, all sources are from launch or they are primary, or they violate WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. seems like just a one-time event, it is now discontinued and new sources will not appear. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Takes a lot more than this to rise from the mundane morass of cryptocurrency claimants. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has received some coverage, which goes beyond its launch and sponsoring one of Dennis Rodman's trips. I also found some reliable sources which talk about it: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. There's also a book about it. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig:
The book self-published (CreateSpace), it cannot be cited.
CryptoNinjas and Bitcoinist are blogs, and they not independent sources, and per consensus established on WP:RSN, a crypto-focused media like Bitcoin Magazine or Coindesk is not citable. CryptoNinjas has articles that are worse than the ones written by Aaron van Wirdum for Bitcoin Magazine (which is not allowed), so I don't think CryptoNinjas can be cited. CryptoNinjas invites you to contact them for advertising, it doesn't specify whether they would let you publish any piece, but I think it would be reasonable that they'd do that.
Bitcoinist is pay-to-publish, it cannot be cited.
You keep posting poor sources, and you always vote keep on cryptocurrency deletion discussions that I have started. I have repeatedly challenged you, and you have ignored me in e.g. AfD discussions like Bitcoin faucet, Bithumb, Coins.ph (in which I notified you about the high bar for sources of cryptocurrency articles). In the discussion of BitPesa, I have not challenged you (as I should have), but in that discussion you have admitted a source was not reliable (Disrupt Afrika), while at the same time posting a link to bitcoin.com, which is not independent at all (controlled by Roger Ver) and this is after I notified you that even CoinDesk cannot be cited. How can it be that you keep posting bad sources, and that you never defend them when challenged? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:41, 6 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) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. To the extent that a notability case can be made, it's as a marketing stunt [15]. The article would need a more-or-less complete rewrite in order to bring it in line with the (few) reliable sources, rather than the PR from inside the bubble. At most, this topic merits a brief paragraph in another article; I'd potentially support a redirect if a good target were proposed, but nothing in this article as it exists merits preservation by merging. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, WP:RS, and WP:MILL. Much of the text is about block-chain currency generically. If you took out all the extraneous footnotes and text, there were be nothing left but a short description. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_7&oldid=983605224"