Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Tomlinson[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - I would suggest moving this to draftspace Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. It is well-established that playing for/against U21s in the [EFL Trophy]] does not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little coverage on him, so fails WP:GNG. Also does not cross the bar for WP:NFOOTBALL, for he has not played in relevant professional matches. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify could become eligible soon since playing in League1 RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:32, 17 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 List of Shining Time Station episodes#Christmas Special (1990). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Time Station: 'Tis a Gift[edit]

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

Doesn't look to be notable. TVguide is reliable, but doesn't give significant coverage. This is also reliable, but is rather bare. here is a brief newspaper piece, but it's just a plot summary. Only two sentences there. One paragraph in a Billboard video preview. Beyond that, I'm mostly justing finding TV listings. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; it's more TTTE cruft, this time a holiday special. Ringo Starr's presence cannot make this notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shining Time Station per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Shining Time Station episodes where this special is already covered, copying some content (some of the episode's guest cast like Rachel Miner, Lloyd Bridges) and a summary of a few sentences. This was a pretty popular Christmas special (and much-played VHS tape in my household) and copying some content would be an improvement to the list of episodes of that show. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shining Time Station as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were two redirect suggestions. TH1980 and GhostDestroyer100, care to de-clarify your preferences? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shining Time Station.TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shining Time Station Spudlace (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No stand-alone notability shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to List of Shining Time Station episodes#Christmas Special (1990) would be the most logical location. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:32, 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. Clear consensus to delete. One suggestion for merge, but as the content is unsourced, that would not really be a suitable ATD so I am closing as straight delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel (fictional locomotive)[edit]

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

I'm not finding coverage for this fictional character outside of wikis, sundry other user-generated sources, blogs, toy sales sites, and primary sources. Previously redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series back in August, this was later reverted in September by Shhhnotsoloud with the statement that the redirection caused problems with redirects and context at the target. Was earlier prodded by Piotrus, deprod was done the next day by Necrothesp as "too iconic for prodding". Well, since PROD and redirection have both been objected to, and a merge is not a great idea, given that the sole inline citations is to an unreliable source, so the content in not verified at the moment, we go here to AFD. I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My initial PROD was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Well, the unsubstantiated claim of "too iconic" aside, nothing has changed, and said claim is, well... WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that my deprod was simply because I believed that prodding had been misused. Prods are only for blatant rubbish, not for well-sourced articles, and are becoming too commonly used for articles that should actually be taken to AfD for proper discussion.. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has one inline citation to an unreliable source. I don't think this is exactly "well-sourced". Hog Farm _Bacon 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's also, by definition, sourced to the books and other media in which the character appears! Editors shouldn't just go round slapping prods on articles that need discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neutral on deletion, but I should explain that I reverted the original blank-and-redirect because not all incoming redirects to this article concern The Railway Series, and List of characters in The Railway Series#Diesel would have been reduced to a circular redirect. A more careful merge would work, though, with attention to incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find reliable sources for WP:GNG but if sources are found I would support keep/merge. Spudlace (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the primary antagonist of the series. I'm fed of the Thomas deletionists that have destroyed Wiki coverage of Thomas recently and now even the main characters are being deleted. If this gets deleted then Wikipedia should give Thomas fans their donation money back. Stop forcing us to use the ad laden fandom.com. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; with selective merge This is exactly what fandom/wikia is for... Aren't they also a part of the Wikimedia foundation; IP? Back to subject, the subject isn't notable as is. Selective merge where needed with the main List of Thomas & Friends characters article. Nightfury 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substantial 3rd-party, secondary source coverage. That is what we need to justify an article. Not a claim that someone is the "main antagonist", which is not really a sustainable claim in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since he is the main antagonist indeed, I thought there would be some reliable coverage about him. Instead I got the same unreliable sources Hog Farm did. A redirect is all that's worth, and that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is material better suited for a Thomas & Friends Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common sense and ignore all rules in opposition to the wholesale targeting of most or all of the main engine character and other articles about an iconic book series and television series. Wikipedia has a good collection of Thomas pages, so not understanding why this type of thing is allowed and tolerated in encyclopedic coverage of an overall topic, so maybe a closer could end it by saying enough is enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am fine if an appropriate redirect is decided on and created after this closes, but as the entire content of the current article is unsouced, save for a single line cited to the official Thomas & Friends site, it should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 23:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of Hope[edit]

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

This page appears to have previously been about a book, which was then re-directed and some text about a South-African nonprofit has been added. There has been no attempt to establish the notability of this organisation, and I have not found anything remotely like significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much per the nomination. Article is currently about an unremarkable non-profit. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 21:56, 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 Moot. Moved to template space. A WP:MFD would be needed to delete it if it is considered problematic there. Sandstein 09:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a map. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed a vector graphic with hyperlinks or something of the sort would be needed. A grid of streets just doesn't work in a wikitable; I'm sorry, the half-bounded intersections and cramped vertical text look poor and unusable even in template space, with cell sizes determined by the amount of text rather than geographic scale. Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same format:

Delete both - Looks like a lot of admirable work went into these, but yeah, enwiki isn't a map. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are maps used as guides to orient the reader as to the locations of buildings in an article, a geographic index if you will. Articles include Broadway (Los Angeles) and Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880–1899). As the same grid serves several articles, (those plus Spring Street, Main Street, Los Angeles Street and Historic Core, Los Angeles) it was better to have the grids as separate documents that could be inserted into multiple articles. They weren’t meant to stand alone. I suppose people would be happier if this was a vector graphic with hyperlinks but I’m only learning how to do that. I think this is intuitive and useful in the articles, but whatever, if the majority think the articles are more useful without this, I have to accept that. Keizers (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Keizers: - In that case, a template might be what you wanted. As this stands, it is in the article space, so it is functioning as a stand-alone article in this form. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hog Farm: I moved the content to the Template namespace. So I guess the articles for deletion don't exist anymore. Keizers (talk) 22:17, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pichenotte[edit]

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

Non notable game, unsourced for 13 years, can't find any independent in-depth coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:WikiProject Cue sports has been notified of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked too, and could find none, either. A non-notable game (in terms of Wikipedia) - I'm sure it's fun to play, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any WP:GNG sources either, though I found one for Pitchnut I put in that article, so it has one ref now. I wonder if it would be a good idea to merge some of these articles for similar games into one artice, see Category:Disk-flicking games, Football-style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Football is essentially a set-index for things that also have their own articles, plus a history-of-their-origins piece, so I'm not sure that's a good analogy. That said, it might still be reasonable to merge some of these games into one article, at least the ones that are clearly directly related to each other, like pichenotte, pitchnut, and crokinole. At a guess, I would think crokinole is the WP:COMMONNAME. I saw (via the manufacturer site https://www.pichenotte.com/history-2/ ) that in Canada the terms are sometimes treated as essentially synonymous and divided primarily on a regional/linguistic basis, though actual rule sets and even board types vary. That is, the games generally can in fact be distinguished, even if the terms are also used more broadly. It's similar to "billiards" which can refer to a family of games or to a very specific game, depending on where you are from and what the context is (e.g., if you are British or Australian, "billiards" usually means English billiards, and if you're American there's a good chance it means pool, broadly, but there's also a good chance (especially if you're a player) that it means carom billiards instead, or you might mean all such games as a class, depending how you use the word). There's a similar usage crossover/conflict here, where one writer may mean "pichenotte, a specific game, with a square board, mostly played in Quebec", etc., while another may mean "pichenotte/pitchnut/crokinole, a cluster of games played with discs, on boards of various shapes, with varying rule sets". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending better WP:BEFORE. No one appears to have checked obvious sources like boardgame books, Quebec folkways books, etc. Not every subject's notability can be determined by perfunctory WP:GOOGLE stabbing-in-the-dark. Not every subject is covered by current news reports or journal articles, much less online ones, but that does not mean there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, how much effort has been put into looking through French-language sources (cf. WP:BIAS)? As noted above, I'm not entirely opposed to a merger. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, someone may be making an effort:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I haven't found good enough sources, but that's mostly because my French is poor. Found mentions in these books: [2], [3]. This game isn't some passing fad or internet sensation, and I feel confident that it's a significant part of Quebecois / Acadian / Franco-Canadian culture. If I'm wrong about expanding this, there's enough verifiable here that it should be merged to a suitable target. Archrogue (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is a passing mention, no good. The second may be good for a WP:GNG-point, but what I can see is very limited and I don't know the language, so I don't know if it's about the topic of this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I note this page at Quebec Association of Pichenotte Players, it has nothing useful for this article, but of course that was 10 years ago. Their historypage [4] is also pretty bare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume everyone found [5], it seems hugely relevant. I'm not certain this should be an article, it might be better off as a redirect? Hobit (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This from Tavistock Times Gazette (?) seems somewhat WP:RS, and I think it supports the argument for a Merge with crokinole, and maybe a few others should be merged there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find myself remarkably unclear on whether there's any actual difference between pichenotte and pitchnut, or whether they're really just French and English names for the same thing. Having an answer to that question would certainly help me make a more informed decision one way or the other, because "redirect to pitchnut" isn't quite off the menu yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
October 5, 2020 To the Editors from DVQuebec

Edit requests like the following should be posted on article talk pages. See below post for more details.

I have CONFLICT OF INTEREST as owner of www.pichenotte.com and I own the US Trademark for PICHENOTTE and a PAID hobby of making pichenotte boards, I will defer to other editors to correct, amend and edit the entry for pichenotte to provide accuracy and inclusiveness.

MY SUGGESTED ADDITIONS, CHANGES AND REFERENCES/ CITATIONS FOR PICHENOTTE

Pichenotte is a French word derived from pichenette which means 'flick'. ^[1] ^[2]

Pichenotte is a United States Trademark ^[3] ^[4]

The Quebec Museum of Civilisation ^[5] 'aka' Musee de la Civilisation de Quebec ^[6] has two collection exhibits for the game of 'pichenotte'.

The round board at the Canadian Quebec Museum of Civilisation ^[7]

The square board at the Canadian Quebec Museum of Civilisation^[8]

- On the square board, the edges of the playing surface are bounded by raised wooden sides. The object of the game is to strike a wooden disc such that it contacts lighter discs and propels them into one of four corner pockets. These pockets are usually larger than those on Indian carrom boards. The playing pieces come in two colors denoting the two players (or teams, in doubles play). An additional piece is colored red (or other unique color) and called the "queen" or "king".

- On the round board, the playing surface is raised above the floor of the board and is surrounded by a ditch enclosed with an octagonal or round wall. The board is divided into four quadrants with three scoring zones made up of three concentric circles and one center hole. Eight posts, positioned equally around the innermost scoring circle line, surround the center hole. The object of the game is to knock your opponent's pucks from the board while keeping your own on the board.

- The aim of the square game is to sink one's eleven pieces before the opponent sinks theirs. However before sinking one's final piece, the queen must be pocketed and "covered" by pocketing one of one's own pieces on the same or a subsequent shot. Fouls, such as crossing the diagonal lines on the board with any part of one's body, or scratching (pocketing the striker or sending it off the board), lead to one of one's pieces being returned to the board.

- The aim of the round game is to score as many points as possible, while limiting those of your opponent. At the end of play, all pucks left on the board are counted (according to their position in each of the three scoring zones) and added to any pucks that came to rest in the center hole (these are removed from the board). Many variations of the rules exist.

Rules for Round Pichenotte World Crokinole Championship^[9] Pichenotte Dot Com^[10]

Rules for Square Pichenotte - Quebec Association of Pichenotte Players ^[11]

The round game also has other names, which does cause confusion, such as:

French: Croquignole flick, biscuit, bun ^[12]

English: Crokinole - Anglicized form of the French Croquignole ^[13] ^[14]

German: KnipsBrat - the flicking board ^[15]

The word pichenotte is used liberally to describe other games that include the action of flicking. Such as Pichenotte Hockey ^[16]

There seems to be no book references to the square or round game of pichenotte, however, there is an important book about the round game aka crokinole called The Crokinole Book by Wayne Kelly^[17] Publisher: 1st Edition: Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario, Canada 2nd Edition: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Revised Third Edition: Self Published by Wayne Kelly 1988, 1999, 2012 ISBN: 0-919783-83-X 1. Crokinole (game) I. Title GV1312 K44 1988 794 C88-093933-8

There are newspaper articles about pichenotte tournaments and events in Santa Fe, New Mexico:

1) Tavistock Gazette September 27, 2020 ^[18]

2) Santa Fe New Mexican October 27, 1998 ^[19]

3) Santa Fe New Mexican December 19, 1999 ^[20]

4) The Albuquerque Journal August 10, 1999 ^[21]

There are many webpages confirming the common knowledge that pichenotte also refers to the round game Round Pichenotte_1^[22] Round Pichenotte_2^[23] Round Pichenotte_3^[24] Round Pichenotte_4^[25] Round Pichenotte_5^[26] Round Pichenotte_6^[27] scroll to the end of this page ^[28]

Let's look at some round pichenotte boards for sale on the web:

Round Pichenotte_7^[29] Round Pichenotte_8^[30] Round Pichenotte_9^[31] Round Pichenotte_10^[32] Round Pichenotte_11^[33] Round Pichenotte_12ef>https://offerup.com/item/detail/854976201/</ref>

Let's look at some pichenotte tournament photos from New Mexico ^[34]

Friend and Family Playing Pichenotte Photos ^[35]

See also www.pichenotte.com

^[36]Book ReferencesBold text (even though no mention is made of Pichenotte) The Crokinole Book by Wayne Kelly^[37] Publisher: 1st Edition: Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario, Canada 2nd Edition: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Revised Third Edition: Self Published by Wayne Kelly 1988, 1999, 2012 ISBN: 0-919783-83-X 1. Crokinole (game) I. Title GV1312 K44 1988 794 C88-093933-

Pichenotte is often used as a pet name for dogs or cats Pichenotte Pet_1^[38] Pichenotte Pet_1^[39]

I have reached out several times to the representatives of the square game, both FQJR (Federation Quebec de Jeux Recreations ^[40] and AJQP Association de Jeux Quebec aux Pichenotte ^[41] in Quebec about their games and rules and inquired about who makes them, but they have never replied to my phone calls or emails.

Items to consider for changing:

2) The current entry for pichenotte states without reference: "The term is sometimes also mistakenly used as the actual name of other games of this class, such as carrom and crokinole."

Who is the authority to be cited ? Who is pronouncing this judgment ? and to what purpose ?

3) The current entry for pichenotte states: "While the specifics are uncertain, pichenotte certainly must have originated from the Indian game carrom. In the mid-19th century, carrom was likely brought to Canada by Indian or British immigrants."

It could be stated more correctly that 'perhaps' or 'probably' or 'likely' pichenotte originated from the Indian game of carrom.

4) The current entry for pichenotte states: " Another variant of the game called pitchnut" without a reference. The reference is ^[42]

items to consider for adding:

1) What millions of Quebec residents know, is that the word pichenotte refers to many games involving a flicking action. They use the word instead of carroms, crokinole, and croquignole. They play pichenotte hockey, pichenotte football, and when they flick each other on the nose or the head, they say they are giving a pichenotte. Pichenotte is a common name for animal pets such as dogs, cats, and birds.

From The Crokinole Book by Wayne Kelly First Edition [[6]] "Origins of the name'' The name "crokinole" derives from croquignole, a French word today designating: in France, a kind of cookie (or biscuit in British English),[9] similar to a biscotto; in French Canada, a pastry somewhat similar to a doughnut (except for the shape).[11]

It also used to designate the action of flicking with the finger (Molière, Le malade imaginaire; or Voltaire, Lettre à Frédéric II Roi de Prusse; etc.), and this seems the most likely origin of the name of the game. Croquignole was also a synonym of pichenotte, a word that gave its name to the different but related games of pichenotte and pitchnut. Crokinole is called knipsbrat ('flick-board') (and occasionally knipsdesh (flick-table)) in the Plautdietsch spoken by Russian Mennonites."

Wayne Kelly states on page 21 of First Edition of The Crokinole Book ^[43] " It is outstanding unusual that, in an age when countless trillions of words have been cranked off the press concerning subjects....next to nothing has been written about a highly popular social activity such as crokinole".

page 22 " ...with regard to all responses and photographs received from museums, archives, historical societies and individuals polled from coast to coast....none added information as to the origin of the game."

The Crokinole Book by Wayne Kelly ISBN: 0-919783-83-X Third Edition: ( spiral bound) ^[44]

pg 41 "Similar to the search for crokinole history, a surprising lack of information about the game of carrom was positively the rule back in 1987 - at least here in North America. Happily, that void is now being addressed by several diligent researchers, historians, and game aficionados."

pg 49 " Great variety has existed in the size, shape and weight of the simple crokinole board." "The early octagonal boards (my personal favorite) weighed close to 11 pounds..." " Round boards, too, have had great popularity." " Round boards have the tendency to show up in specific geographic regions....in Waterloo and Wellington counties of Ontario and in various communities across Quebec"

pg 59

" The designs and dimensions of crokinole boards seems as varied as the men who turned a hand at making them".

DVQuebec adds: Surely, Crokinole players the world over, owe a great debt of gratitude to Wayne Kelly, now deceased ^[45] although his son Caleb is carrying the torch as 'Son of Crokinole at ^[46]

.........................

References

^ https://www.wordsense.eu/pichenotte/
^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pichenotte
^ https://www.pichenotte.com/pichenotte-trademark/
^ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/
^ https://www.mcq.org/en/
^ https://www.mcq.org/en/
^ https://collections.mcq.org/objets/76963
^ https://collections.mcq.org/objets/81406
^ http://www.worldcrokinole.com/thegame.html
^ https://www.pichenotte.com/tournament-rules-dec-2018/
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20111107033543/http://www.fqjr.qc.ca/pichenot/fr/regles.html
^ <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/croquignole>
^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=pichenotte+crokinole&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:A425C._piche_vs_croke1.jpg
^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=pichenotte+crokinole&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:A425C._piche_vs_croke1.jpg
^ http://knipsbrat.com/pichenotte.html
^ https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/246571/pichenotte-hockey
^ https://crokinole.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/book1-b.jpg
^ https://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Gazette_08_26_20_FINAL-5.pdf
^ http://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_mall_pdf_1.pdf
^ http://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_second_st_pdf_7.pdf
^ http://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_albq_journ_jpg_2.pdf
^ https://www.picuki.com/tag/pichenottegame
^ https://www.picuki.com/media/1970147651362463394
^ https://www.picuki.com/media/1418510301346793730
^ https://www.picuki.com/media/1527995846694851666
^ https://www.picuki.com/media/1524870362437054634
^ https://www.picuki.com/media/945886142124624677
^ http://www.worldcrokinole.com/photos2015.html
^ https://www.facebook.com/lejouetantique/photos/jeu-de-pichenotte-tout-fait-de-bois/1428302400753132/
^ https://www.varagesale.com/i/7hpwtwha-jeu-de-pichenotte
^ https://www.ebay.com/itm/193407221347?ViewItem=&item=193407221347
^ https://www.varagesale.com/i/rxwq6xve-crokinole-board-jeu-de-pichenotte
^ https://encanrivenord.hibid.com/lot/80051-103016-6198/jeu-de-pichenotte-vintage/
^ https://www.pichenotte.com/photo-gallery-three/
^ https://www.pichenotte.com/photo-gallery-three/
^ Kelly, Wayne. The Crokinole Book (first edition). Erin, Ontario, Canada: Boston Mills. ISBN 0-919783-83-X.
^ https://crokinole.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/book1-b.jpg
^ https://www.picuki.com/profile/pichenotte_
^ https://www.picuki.com/profile/princesse_pichenotte
^ http://www.quebecjeux.org/portfolio/pichenottes/
^ http://pichenottes.quebecjeux.org/fr/http://pichenottes.quebecjeux.org/fr/
^ https://pitchnut.com/#
^ https://crokinole.com/index.php/products/
^ https://crokinole.com/index.php/products/
^ https://worldcrokinole.com/kelly.html
^ www.crokinole.com

Signed:

ThreeVictors (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi DVQuebec. This is not really the right place to post this type of edit request per WP:AFDFORMAT; so, I've collapsed it per WP:TPG#Off-topic posts. The best place to post such requests are on article talk pages like you tried to do at Talk:Pichenotte. Your request, however, wasn't formatted correctly; so, I cleaned up it up a bit as Talk:Pichenotte#Edit request. For future reference, if you make another edit request on the article's talk page, all you really need to do here is provide a link to it; there's no need to repost the same request here at AFD as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is/was ubiquitous in French Canada. There is very likely literature on it. In looking I found a scholarly article on games played by older adults that has a section dedicated to it. [7] As the game is played by older folks, and is decreasing in popularity, I'm thinking that most information about it will be found offline, but should be easily found in books about French Canadian culture. Acebulf (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* The Musée de la civilization du Québec has/had an exhibit on it. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to reach out to them. They likely have very strong sourcing. Acebulf (talk) 01:24, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lückner[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows only user generated sources, the sourcing in the article is weak. The subject fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created this article a good while ago but to be honest, I'm still not very familiar with the notability guidelines for musicians as I mostly edit footballer articles. I've fleshed out the article a bit with reviews from decent sources. Are the reviews sufficient to demonstrate notability, @Less Unless:? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robby.is.on ! I have looked at the sources you have provided, however to me there's still not enough significant coverage even though there are 2-3 reliable sources. The mentions are rather passing. I still consider the article should be deleted. Sorry. Best, Less Unless (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, @Less Unless:. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "passing" mentions. All of the sources are about the artist's Tokyo album and pretty much nothing else. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robby.is.on, you are right, the articles talk about this album, but what do they say about the artist? In my opinion, there's not much information about him and he is frequently mentioned in connection to My Bloody Valentine which he was inspired by composing another album. To me that might be the reason he is mentioned in the English media. However, this is only my opinion, I respect if you and other disagree. Best, Less Unless (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article such as Pop Matters, AllMusic and The Seattle Weekly so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view. Note that The Pitchfork review does not count as it was by a contributor instead of staff editors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can always be expanded later, as with a lot of articles. Firestar464 (talk) 05:14, 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 speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak for A7 (lack of a claim of significance) and G12 (copyviolation) (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhur The Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 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. Creating a redirect after the topic is covered in the target article is optional. Sandstein 11:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyappetta mammootty[edit]

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

No notability asserted, nor verified. Pure promotion. No discussion evident on the merge proposal, which thus fails WP:GNG and has for years. Time to consign it to the deleted non notable stub bin Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of any notability; Mammootty might well be very notable but this sure ain't Spiderone 20:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mammootty ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:49, 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 keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munni Saha[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munni Saha. There does not appear to be any information in this article that would not have been in the deleted article, because this article states only that she is a Bangladeshi journalist, and the AFD states that she is a journalist. Google search shows that she exists and she is a Bangladeshi journalist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the most notable TV journalists in Bangladesh. Passes WP:GNG, the sources are already added to the article, DW.com, bdnews24.com. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now sufficiently sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zayeem --SalmanZ (talk) 14:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Vaidhyanathan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited to CEOs of WP:CORP. winners of some obscure corporate awards are not notable. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source available that isn't a press release or announcement that she has won a minor award, is this one [8]. Insufficient for GNG Spiderone 21:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponderosa Basin, California[edit]

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

Another GNIS screwup. Does not appear on topographic maps, the coordinates show a small localized depression near a spring. I'm finding newspapers.com hits for "the Ponderosa Basin" and a few real estate listings. This makes it clear that it's a subdivision. I'm also finding a few name drops for Ponderosa Basin chapel, which is in the area, but has a postal code for Mariposa, indicating that this likely doesn't have a PO. Looks to be a minor geographic feature where a subdivision was later built. Probably too minor to pass WP:GEOLAND as a small basin with little recorded history; the subdivision also fails WP:GEOLAND, GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. It has a fire station, a chapel and a mutual water company. I confirmed the following points of the AfD submission: The water company page has a bit of history and states that it is a subdivision created in the 1960's. Newspapers.com indicates that lots started selling in 1965. There was a fire in 2008. This area has at best trivial coverage. Cxbrx (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a suburban housing development. No indication of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:27, 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 keep. Sandstein 15:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicha press[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NPOV and has not one single citation to verify its claims. Also the article seems to be biased towards a certain president. 7falcon23 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Chicha press[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jmbranum (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delay While this article clearly fits deletion criteria for both unsourced claims and NPOV, I think it might be salvageable. I will work on it some today to see what can be done. Jmbranum (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jmbranum (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great sources and more developed article at es:Prensa chicha -- can be used as model to help improve this article even further. Right cite (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject with plenty of reliable sources. I found:
- Luque, F. O. The chicha culture: Between ethno-sway and ethno-boomerang: Peruvian subaltern’s strategies of resistance and cultural singularity.
- Alvarez, Javier Perla; Montero, Daniela Freundt; Barrantes, Eduardo Burga; Takahashi, Talía Postigo; Menton, Mary (2014-11-11). REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Peru. CIFOR. ISBN 978-602-1504-53-6.
- Kozak, Robert (2015-01-09). "Peru Court Gives Fujimori a Fifth Prison Sentence". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-10-13.
- Conaghan, Catherine M. Fujimori's Peru: Deception in the Public Sphere. University of Pittsburgh Pre. ISBN 978-0-8229-7315-7.
- Lugo, Jairo (2008-04-01). The Media in Latin America. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-23551-3.
- Guerrero, M.; Márquez-Ramírez, M. (2014-10-07). Media Systems and Communication Policies in Latin America. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40905-8.
- Gianella, Camila (June 2017). "Abortion Rights Legal Mobilization in the Peruvian Media, 1990–2015". Health and Human Rights. 19 (1): 133–148. ISSN 1079-0969. PMC 5473044. PMID 28630547.
- Quiroz, Alfonso W. (2008-11-10). Corrupt Circles: A History of Unbound Graft in Peru. Woodrow Wilson Center Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9128-1.
- Protzel, Javier (2014), Guerrero, Manuel Alejandro; Márquez-Ramírez, Mireya (eds.), "Media Systems and Political Action in Peru", Media Systems and Communication Policies in Latin America, Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 82–99, doi:10.1057/9781137409058_5, ISBN 978-1-137-40905-8, retrieved 2020-10-13
- Casas Navarro, R. (2009). The chicha press: a cognitive analysis. LETRAS, 80(115), 63-85.
More are easily found. Glee^anon 05:00, 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 redirect to John Carl Buechler. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Light in the Forest[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged since 2009 for notability. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather brief review here [9] from a religious organization who doesn't approve of it. That's all I found in what I would consider to be reliable sources (excluding cruddy-tier movie blogs). There's some coverage of an apparently unrelated 1958 Disney film of the same name, but this one doesn't seem notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an extensive mention in a McFarland book, so between this and the Dove review this might squeak by NFILM, although I'd prefer at least one more source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the two sources mentioned above. Haven't done a full search but there's no critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 28 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 11:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Carl Buechler, where it is already listed in his Filmography. I would not really count the Dove review as helping to pass WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG - outside of a synopsis, their actual review is only two sentences long. So, that really only leaves the McFarland book, which alone is not enough. However, since the film is listed on the director's filmography, a redirect there seems like a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beech Grove, Fulton County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Looks spurious. GNIS is sourced to the Rennick place names file, but Rennick states that Beech Grove was a site where one Mr. Watson donated land for a small school and Methodist church. A county history talks about a Beech Grove school, but no community. The pre-GNIS topos always call it "Beech Grove Church" or "Beech Grove Cemetery." I have seen no evidence that this was any more than a church and one room schoolhouse, so it appears to fail WP:GEOLAND. I'm willing to be proved wrong, especially since searching is complicated by the fact that there are four Beech Groves in Kentucky. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: LOL, you think there's four Beech Groves in Kentucky? How about eleven "Beech Grove Schools"! none of which are in Fulton County. Checking google maps with the coordinates 36.516667, -89.240556 (from the wiki article) shows you an intersection of Beech Grove Rd and state route KY-925, with Beech Grove Church at that intersection. The moment you try to "get directions" and type any character, the notation "Fulton County School District" appears. However, FCSD has all of their schools on a single campus in Hickman, the nearest town 7 miles away. So it's quite possible that there was a school there once. I even checked google and Facebook for anything called "Beech Grove Church" or "Beech Grove United Methodist Church" and I get nothing. I checked the property records for the county for Beech Grove Rd and State Route 925 (just type "925") and there's no property owned by a church name or school name; everything is in the name of an individual. So... since I know a bit about Kentucky culture, this "intersection" and some old school and old church were probably locally known as "Beech Grove" a long time ago ("Go several miles until you get to Beech Grove and make a left"), but there's not much there today and I doubt there was anything "notable" about this area. Normal Op (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article needs work but with new citations I think it can pass notability per WP:GEOLAND. Jmbranum (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmbranum: - Can you point out where in any of the notability guidelines that it says that "if it has a church and a cemetery, it's notable"? What I'm positing is that a church, school, and cemetery were all that was here. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are all in play for deletion at this point. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jmbranum (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Userify I spent some time on Newspapers.com looking for additional sources to make the argument for why this location would meet the notability standards per WP:GEOLAND but unfortunately the abundance of other locales named "Beech Grove" in Kentucky makes it very difficult to determine which stories are referring to which place (other than looking at context, etc.). In light of this, I think the best answer for this article is to move this article to userspace for continued work and possible reconsideration of the article at a later point in time. I now have the current content of the article posted at User:Jmbranum/Beech Grove, Fulton County, Kentucky. Jmbranum (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to clarify that there are some unambiguous references to this particular Beech Grove in the press clippings, such as this one: "Obituary: Hilda Hawkins" The Paducah Sun (August 24, 2012). Jmbranum (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, there's many of those, but mere mentions like that don't add up to notability. It's becoming clearer the place definitely fails the legally recognized community part of GEOLAND, and GNG-bearing coverage is still lacking. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well duh new citiations could help it pass notability, but you need to actually provide them! No indication this is a notable place, that it is legally recognized, or that there is signifcant coverage to pass GEOLAND. People living on the same street and a church sharing the name of the road does not make the neighborhood a notable community. I found no newspapers.com results about the Fulton County place. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason this place has an article is because of it's supposed status as an unincorporated community, which are presumed notable in WP:GEOLAND. It would appear that assigning it this status was erroneous however, the source of this claim is GNIS, who in turn cite Rennick, who claims it to be the site of a church and 1 room school, not a settlement. I have searched for any sources to support the existence of a settlement called Beech Grove in Fulford County but have been unable to find anything.

Since the settlement does not seem to exist we must instead interpret the notability of the school and the church. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES schools are generally not presumed notable simply because they exist and require a claim to notability and sources to support it, I have been unable to locate either for this school. As far as I am aware we do not have a specific notability guideline for church buildings, so it must instead pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING, both of which require significant coverage by third party sources. I have been unable to find any coverage of this church outside of directory listings and passing mentions in some announcements and various genealogy sources, so it would appear that this notability guideline is also not met. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, it might serve our readers best to convert this as part of a list article of Beech Groves in the region. Glee^anon 11:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would then get deleted as failing WP:LISTN. Some content just is inherently non-notable, and not even ATD can save it. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:36, 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. Sandstein 12:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Thompson[edit]

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

(not quite an author, but author-related, hence the categorisation)

I can't discern sufficient notability for this editor. Sources are a press release^[1], a self-written blurb^[2], an uncritical interview^[3], and - the best of the lot - an also-about-her article in Publishers Weekly^[4]. I don't think that does in terms of WP:GNG (and I'm not sure what SNG would apply). -- Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Thompson made editor at Hamish Hamilton". The Bookseller. 7 March 2019.
^ "Hermione Thompson". Penguin.
^ "Hermione Thompson talks about The Water Cure". Penguin. 30 August 2018.
^ "Three Editors In Three Countries Made 'The Water Cure' What It Is". Publishers Weekly. 14 December 2018.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough articles in Bookseller and other trade press referring to her as the representative buying a manuscript or similar stories to suggest meeting GNG: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Although, with the exception of the last article which is already cited in our article, none of these are significantly about this person, they are significant-enough reflections of her notable role in the publishing industry to convince me that GNG has been minimally met. I know that's not the most ringing endorsement but WP:N doesn't demand more that that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to not satisfy WP:SIGCOV, the links mentioned revert back to one mention of the same source again. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles published independently of both the subject and each other in the same major industry journal are not what I'd classify as "one mention of the same source." If I cited five articles about different aspects of John F Kennedy's presidency in Time, would that count as "one source"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Primary sourcing galore (including those listed above). Thebookseller articles are all press releases. Google search on her name plus "editor" turned up only three pages, none from independent third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:44, 17 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Gowri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 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 redirect to Full Metal Panic. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retsu Tateo[edit]

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

Not notable. Investigatory (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be great to have an editor fluent in Japanese to check out some of the citations in the article on Full Metal Panic!, the manga series she illustrated; and also Comic Valkyrie. Netherzone (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only citations I found for FMP were primary sources (a mention on Kadokawa along with other staff involved), and from retailers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Retsu Tateo is the author of a popular manga series. I think she meets notability. — Coastaline (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Full Metal Panic!. Her Japanese name is written as 館尾, I could find no notable information in WP:RS other than passing mentions. I am fine with a redirect to FMP as that appears to be her most notable contribution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect - to Full Metal Panic. After searching, I could only find mentions of her in relation to FMP. It seems that editors fluent in Japanese have weighed in above. If some SIGCOV in RS can be found I could change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Full Metal Panic! Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it may be notable as Coastaline said and could be recreated if we find additional RS. Spudlace (talk) 03:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix8[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recreated immediately after PROD deletion. W 42 22:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W 42 22:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification
Hello everyone,

for several days I was creating a draft of the article named "Fix8". I noticed that the existing page was referencing a non-existing company

and the link to the company website was pointing to a completely unrelated product.

So I asked for the old page to be deleted.

After a week, the page was gone, so I moved the already finished draft content into the now available page for a new article to be created.

Here is the original draft I created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fix8_(software)

I hope I didn't do anything wrong.Nemase (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemase:You didn't do anything wrong, I'm just concerned that the subject fails our General notability guideline. There need to be multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Fix8 for an article to exist. I don't think that any of the sources in the article currently meet this criteria and I was unable to find any on a cursory search. If you can show that this subject meets that criteria, the article will be kept. W 42 23:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42:I added three more references from press releases regarding the Fix8.

I would also like to point out something I heard from one advocate of free and open software who said that it is quite common for open source projects not to have good references because open source projects are not end user scenarios.

Take for instance a number of existing wikipedia articles about other open source projects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickFIX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normaliz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waarp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_(software) Nemase (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hi everyone ... I am the creator of the article and I would like to repeat that open source projects often don't have the same degree of available references as for instance popular culture or science articles (again, see the examples above). Nevertheless, the subject of this article (Fix8) is well known within the fintech open source community and is well established with many users over the years. The added references should confirm that fact. Nemase (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet our notability standard. Anybody who needs a FIX decoder can search for it on GitHub/Google. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley: as it happens I created a draft for another open source project article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FastFlow) that I submitted for a review and you declined that submission within 3 minutes (20:57 -- 21:00) from posting the above delete mark. You stated the same concerns about both articles. If you would be willing to spend more than 3 minutes of your time, would you be so kind to take a look at (for what I see as an iconic and unquestionable free and open source project):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake

and let me know how is the notability of such an accepted article different from what I am trying to submit? I do not wish to question your methods in evaluating article submissions, but I would really appreciate if you could give us more substantial argument Nemase (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I am trying to apply is WP:NSOFT - we need significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It looks like there has been slightly more coverage of CMake than Fix8, but I would say that the CMake article is borderline in terms of notability. If you have any more questions, I would be happy to discuss via IRC chat. I'm online most of the time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Salimfadhley: thank you for your quick reply, I do really appreciate it ... and also thank you so much for confirming my above argument. If CMake article is borderline in terms of notability and we are talking about a tool that is like water to every C++ programmer (they either actively use it or at least they are aware of it), then imagine how difficult (I would say definitely impossible) it is to satisfy the WP:NSOFT as you see it. My point is, as I mentioned above, that free and open source articles should merit some leniency when it comes to notability as you interpret it. Otherwise, one can immediately start removing about 95% of existing free and open source articles. Also, thank you for your IRC offer, but this discussion board should be the right and proper place to resolve the issue, where I wish other people would also join this discussion. Nemase (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Financial Information eXchange You also forgot QuickFIX. Both articles fail software notability as above, but can easily be merged into a new section for implementation in Financial Information eXchange. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Salimfadhley above. WP:SPA author likely has an undisclosed COI, so any future articles should go through AfC. 1292simon (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is no evidence of reliable and independent sources, I'll say that WP:GNG is not met. WP:NSOFT also suggest the subject is not notable. Nemase keeps referring to other, similar articles that exist on Wikipedia but that does nothing to establish the notability of this particular subject (per WP:WHATABOUT). Modussiccandi (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note here is the author again ... I just want to clarify that I am trying to propose several articles regarding free and open source projects because this is the area where I am comfortable writing about. I started with articles about core projects that I used over the years and am currently using on daily basis and feel that they should have a place on wikipedia. Fix8 was the first one, but I also created another one about FastFlow (link above) and I tried to go with it through AfC, but Salimfadhley marked both of them for deletion in one very fast swipe with (see above) in my opinion very poor arguments (btw. calling Fix8 or QuickFIX a simple FIX decoder is like saying that bicycle is a device with round objects). It is quite obvious that none of the editors took a look at the updated references I provided for both articles. I already prepared material for a third article about tailwind css library and wanted to make a draft that will go through AfC, but after this I have to say that I am deeply discouraged. Just to make clear, Fix8 was started by an Australian and a Russian, FastFlow is a project that grew from two Italian universities and tailwind css was started in Canada. I live and work in Vienna, Austria. I would also like to raise my concerns about competence of Salimfadhley in evaluating both of those articles. I sincerely think his work is very superficial and simply sloppy (his comments about CMake prove that beyond any doubt). Since it looks like this debate is soon to end, I would just like to politely ask the following editors, @Salimfadhley:, @KartikeyaS343: and @1292simon: to give us at least one example of recently accepted article about free and open source software that successfully went through AfC. I hope I am not asking for too much. Thank you for your time, even if it was just 3 minutes. And also, thank you @Footlessmouse: for what it looks like, the only constructive suggestion in this discussion.Nemase (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is the required process for COI situations, and throwing mud at a neutral obsever isn't going to help your cause. 1292simon (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemase: Having read your above comment, let me add a few things to my previous comment. 1) Although you have said lots in this discussion, you refuse to engage the problem of the article: namely that it violates Wikipedia's (admittedly high) standards for notability. What we are looking for is coverage in reliable (i.e. reputable) and independent sources. Now, you keep referring to those sources you added in this edit. Two of them ([15] and [16]) about the subject's relationship with Saxo Bank. The other one is about them teaming up with Diamond Circle. Press releases are not considered independent sources on Wikipedia (see WP:NIS. So, your repeated mention of these sources does not show anything with regard to notability. 2) You point out that there are other articles about similar subjects on Wikipedia. While this is true, arguments like this are not very useful in a deletion discussion. Each article is to be assessed on its own merits and many articles have made it onto this project without meeting the guidelines. In an ideal world, each of them would have their own deletion discussion. But since we are discussing this particular article, saying things like "but you guys also admitted x article" is not particularly constructive (see WP:WHATABOUTX for details). 3) Speaking of non-constructive comments: You allege that Salimfadhley, 1292simon and myself are not constructive. We are all here in good faith, so please cut this kind of stuff. Allow me to say that your failure to actually engage in discussing the key question of notability might by some be seen as rather unconstructive. 4) Lastly, I understand that you feel that more leniency and leeway is needed for subjects such as this one. Perhaps you are right but this AfD is not the place to advance these ideas. What we try and do here is to consult Wikipedia's guidelines of which verifiably and notability are quite central and to determine whether a subject meets these guidelines as they are. With the sources that have been presented so far, Fix8 does not meet these guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi: Thank you for your elaborate and constructive comment. I have to say that I agree with everything you said and I really wish this appeared sooner. I would like to apologize to everyone (and especially to Salimfadhley) for my non-constructive comments and mud throwing. I really feel ashamed I did that and the only (not really good excuse) is that I do hope you understand the frustration I felt which I described above. I do understand you are all here in good faith and in the name of that good faith I would like to ask one last thing from any of the editors reading or commenting: can any of you recommend a single article about free and open source software that recently went through AfC and was accepted? I promise I won't comment on that, I would just like to have it as a future reference and I think it would also greatly help other editors reading this. Saying that, I do understand if you are unwilling to provide such example after this exchange. Once again, thank you for your time . Nemase (talk) 13:33, 18 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! 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalwa[edit]

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

I don't believe this place exists. There are no GPS coordinates. It is not listed in the 2014 Moroccan census (XLS file). There is one source, a UN map. On Google Maps, neither the settlement nor the road it is on on that map exist. Bing Maps has nothing. OpenStreetMap has nothing. There are no sources other than the one map that attest to the existence of the city. Other small towns in Western Sahara, such as Jdiriya (population 248), show up on all these sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, if you take the road south East from Boujdour here you end up at a little settlement here that looks to be about where Chalwa should be. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it's likely there. I found a brief sentence somewhere else on Wikipedia that said there was a conflict over it and that looks like the type of place there would be a conflict over. Given that it's next to a small water body in the middle of know where. I could see it being strategically important to some Saharan tribe. If that's not it though, I'm almost certain it's somewhere in that area. Given the lines from Boujdour and Galtat Zemmour Zabyra to where it should be and where they would intersect. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you take the barely visible road from that place directly south east you end up here. Which looks way more promising. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about where Aridal is on the UN map. This is very close to the UN map location, though. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would make some sense that this (and Aridal) is a (possibly-abandoned) military base. I'd like a bit clearer evidence before withdrawing the AFD though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's definitely been on UN maps for over 20 years (1995 to 2015 at the minimum) and is also on maps used by tertiary institutes where Western Sahara is a topic. Textbooks also list it. It is referred to in documents by the Robert College International Model United Nations. Scientific papers have been written about its geology (see citation list). Unfortunately, there is very little online about Western Sahara's geography. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it it's WP:V, then an inhabited place is almost always kept. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Absolutely nothing has improved about this since the last discussion, and I note that Aridal was deleted even though it appears on the same map: the inconsistencies were just irreconcilable. The UN map has proven to be just not good enough as a source, especially given the trouble we are having even locating it. Dots on maps do not establish notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete After looking into it I don't think there's any way to tell which dot on the map it actually is. As what's available is low quality. There's really no way to know if it's an inhabited place or not if we can't even find anything about it. So, I'm not sure what guideline it would be kept based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, included on multiple maps in different published years by the United Nations:

Department of Field Support, Cartographic Section (February 2009), Map No. 3691 Rev. 58 United Nations (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 10 February 2018, retrieved 15 October 2020 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
Department of Field Support, Cartographic Section (13 April 2009), Map No. 3691 Rev. 59 United Nations (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 15 October 2020, retrieved 15 October 2020 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
Department of Field Support, Cartographic Section (October 2012), Map No. 3175 Rev. 4 United Nations (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2020, retrieved 15 October 2020 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's take a step back here. What is this place? A settled location would be included in the census and on general-use maps. Chalwa isn't. What we have is a dot on successive editions of a United Nations map. No one seems to know what that dot means, or even where it is. How we can verify a subject when we have no sources describing it? Mackensen (talk) 04:49, 17 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. It isn't clear which articles editors wish draftified; anyone wishing to work on any of these in draftspace should contact me on my talk page, and I will provide draftspace copies. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masters West Region Track and Field Championship[edit]

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

Article is not really about the championship, it's a list of meets, and some other content of unclear relevance. There are a number of other articles by the same editor with essentially copied text:

USA National Masters Outdoor Track and Field Championship
USATF Southern California Association
USA National Masters Indoor Track and Field Championship ... discospinster _talk 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Page has been updated with Dates and Locations of Meets, and Notable Athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainDonut (talk • contribs)
October 10, 2020: These Pages have been updated. Are there any other suggestions to reduce the chances of "deletion" ? Or are they no longer being considered for deletion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainDonut (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No evidence of being notable. If in doubt, then drafity them all back to the author, because they're not encyclopedic in their current format. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all of them) All of them almost certainly fail WP:GNG. No complaints to a draftify. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer to being sent to "DRAFT" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainDonut (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all - since the creator seems to be keen to prove notability for these, I say we give them the chance to do so but they need to find reliable secondary sources covering these events. Definitely none of these are suitable for the mainspace currently, though. Spiderone 10:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify National events - Currently not in an encyclopedic style. List of meets and list of some people who've competed in them. Seems unlikely there's much interest in the regional events/association. Nigej (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all per Spiderone. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
October 15, 2020: All articles have been updated. More updates to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainDonut (talk • contribs) 22:06, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Hirrle[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that he meets WP:BIO. Listed in databases, but no sources which are actually about him. Fram (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject can be considered notable per WP:NSOCCER however there's hardy any coverage. I'm leaning towards keep as there's many association football articles that have even less sources but are kept per WP:NSOCCER.Less Unless (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that policy applies to referees Spiderone 17:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For referees their officiated international match (matches) is notability item for them even though friendly match. Sol i think this article has no ane reason for delete.... Almgerdeu (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees need to pass WP:GNG so there needs to be clear and significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. There is no inherent notability for referees just because they have refereed an international friendly fixture. Spiderone 10:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I would argue for WP:BIO if he had refereed many important matches, but he didn't. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your important match?? for players to play in official match (even friendly) is enough for notability. Jacques Hirrle officiated 4 official friendly matches. Is not enough? Or why is enough for football player (s) but not for referee??? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} Spiderone Almgerdeu (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how many matches he has refereed. It's about whether he is the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources Spiderone 21:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't mean to throw a spanner in the works but surely there will be newspaper articles, offline sources. This AfD seems bias towards the online review. Govvy (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so i removed PROD...thanks all of you. Almgerdeu (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's generally considered best practice not to remove an AfD until the discussion has concluded Spiderone 09:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, a lot, more more articles as we talked...this article have sources and created and edited correctly (i had mistakes that some users informed me, before)....so i corrected all of them....i did not understand that why this article must delete......Almgerdeu (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources provided are just routine entries in database websites. There isn't any evidence that Hirrle has received significant coverage. If such sources can be found, please do link them in the article and I am happy to change my vote. Spiderone 16:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no showing of actual significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 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 12:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Sardar[edit]

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

I fail to see how being the shortest person in x country makes an individual notable, especially when there is no significant coverage. Perhaps the name can be added on List of shortest people or something but I see no evidence this person is notable enough for a standalone article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, hi! Perhaps Malati Rishidev should be bundled with this nom? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not about to create the 200 or so articles that having articles on the shortest person for every country would necessitate. This is not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grietje Veenstra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. A sportsperson who won some local competitions, with a very local source (regional pubisher). I couldn't find any other sources, she will be included in some old newspapers (just like every somewhat succesful local sportsperson is included in local and regional newspapers), but seems to lack the required coverage to meet NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. From the book “Vrouwen in de Hardrijdersbaan” (Could be translated as: Women in speed skating). Not a regional source, but a national book publication. This book describes the main Dutch women who made speed skating history. Speed skating is the second largest sport in the Netherlands with a rich history. A section of two pages in this book is dedicated to her. In this book is she described as one of the main women speed skaters in her era. These “local competitions” as the nominator names is, were the highest level speed skating competitions in that era. These competitions, mainly in Friesland were published across the Netherlands and not only in Frisian media. (For many more speed skaters that otherwise could be nominated for deletion for the same reason see Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women)). SportsOlympic (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the book SportsOlympic (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 Meets NSports#Basic criterea. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nsports:Basic criteria requires multiple non-trivial sources, so even if one does accept that book as one good enough source, she still doesn't meet the criteria. Inote that e.g. here, a source you use for many of the others, she only gets a passing mention, nothing more. Being the second most popular sport in a country doesn't give one unlimited entries: cycling was (and is) hugely popular in Belgium, but many amateur cyclists winning local races in 1890 or so will never get articles as they aren't notable either, even though the local and regional newspapers will have produced race reviews. Basically, you'll need more indepth sources for her (and for other similar articles) to get the subjects to meet NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’re showing another book. The book is not extensively about that period; and more research has been done later on. The book I used for this article is writing more in dept about the several skaters; that’s the reason I added this skater. Compared to the Belgian cyclist; this is the history of Dutch kortebaanschaatsen, popular in that era. That’s why there are many books about these persons. And many skaters in that book are described only in a few sentences (I think not enough to have an article about them). I’m thinking of adding them to a list. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as there is very little coverage on her; one non-notable book about women in speed skating certainly isn't enough. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC too, as she has not participated in a major competition. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walwal20:, it would help to explain your statements. Can you tell why it fails all you mention? SportsOlympic (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOlympic I expanded it. Unfortunately, since the subject is from years far in the past, we won't have many sources, but nothing can be done about that. We cannot state that she was "main women speed skaters in her era" based on a single source. It could be just WP:PUFF, especially in a book about speed skating, and specially in a book about women in particular. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article overstates the importance of Grietje Veenstra in 'Vrouwen in de Hardrijdersbaan'. In the article, it says "In the Dutch book 'Vrouwen in de Hardrijdersbaan', about the Dutch women’s speed skating history, Veenstra is described as one of the main speed skaters in her era." The book lists important skaters such as Lutske Wester and their contemporaries, women who also won prizes in competitions. Veenstra belongs to the latter category. Her single paragraph starts with the brief intro "Een figuur van iets groter formaat kwam enkele jaren later." Translating: A figure of slightly greater format came a few years later. She receives one paragraph of 5 sentences in a chapter "Contemporaries". Slightly greater than whom? Slightly greater than Trijntje Kingma who correctly did not receive an article. By the weight given in the book, Grietje Veenstra should not have one either. Correspondingly there are just listings in Delpher. While the effort to create articles about sportswomen in the 19th and early 20th century is much appreciated (!), a book like 'Vrouwen in de Hardrijdersbaan' should not be scraped to the last person mentioned. gidonb (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is implicit but I'll make it explicit. Having looked into it, I do accept the book as a valid source. Nothing wrong with the publisher either. gidonb (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, SportsOlympic, I can't find anything to help establish notability for this person. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahir Hashmi Adeeb[edit]

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

I truly cannot find anything in reliable sources about this poet, who I believe fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. But, from the description in the article, he sounds potentially notable, so perhaps I'm missing something. Prior AfD is not helpful with respect to sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 25 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 13:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone who speaks Urdu will provide local reliable sources, the article should be deleted. There's no coverage except for Wiki mirror sites. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Less Unless, while the Hasrat Mohani Award implies that the subject might be notable, it is impossible to know for sure without sources. If this article can't be sourced to anything other than a Wordpress blog and other Wikipedia mirrors, then I'm afraid it should be deleted Spiderone 07:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until reliable sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlevoix Building[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Souces in article are blogs. BEFORE showed no RS that have direct and in-depth SIGCOV about the subject. Article itself has no claim of notability. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agree with nominator that the article's sources are not useable, there is, however, this paper (pages 7 to 10 (unpaginated) of pdf file) that includes comprehensive info on the building, also, at the very least, Park Avenue Historic District (Detroit, Michigan) looks like a pretty good "redirect" target (with a sentence or two added:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Architecturally significant historic building, listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing building in a historic district. We have many articles on contributing buildings that are not separately listed, as here, but for which there is significant info. The NRHP nomination document linked by Coolabahapple above does indeed include a great amount of info about the building, including that it deemed architecturally significant for having the first "marquis" in Detroit, in style of ones in New York City and elsewhere. There is more than enough material for a good "Start"-level article at least, and too much for merger into the historic district article IMO. Probably local historical society and/or local main library have photos and other materials about this building; it would certainly have been written about in Detroit newspapers at time of its construction and also off and on during the years. The story of its destruction is also significant and worth telling, although the nominator and Coolabahapple don't like the blog-like sources which were used (but probably are accurate in what they say, only have to omit some subjective spin). Also its architect William S. Joy (currently a redlink) appears to be notable for a Wikipedia article also (search on "William S. Joy" architect yields a portrait photo of him held by a Corona (California?) library, and info about a number of buildings he designed. The NRHP doc provides birthdate and some more. About the building, tag it for improvement if you want to punish the world somehow, but this is certainly a valid topic and article, so "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no sources that show this is an architecturally significant historic building. It is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Their is nothing notable about its destruction or its history. It does not meet GNG or NBUILDING. // Timothy :: talk 11:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi, Kentucky[edit]

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

The claim of a community being here appears to be incorrect, as this location was actually a Baptist Church with a cemetery. GNIS is sourced to Rennick, but his notes for Carlisle County and his index don't mention a Mississippi in Carlisle County. Following the coordinates takes me to a location of Rennick's annotated topographic map labeled Mississippi Church, with "Bap." (apparently Baptist) handwritten next to it. I can only go as far back as 1939 with the topographic maps, but all call it Mississippi Church and show the church and an apparently associated cemetery. Searching for "Mississippi, Carlisle County, Kentucky" brings up nothing about this supposed place. Next, I searched for "Mississippi Church, Carlisle County, Kentucky" and found this, which states that someone was buried at a Mississippi Church, which is implied to have an address in nearby Arlington. Looking for it under Mississippi Baptist Church brings up this. And someboy left the church money in her will in the early 20th century. Further WP:BEFORE searching only brings up directory listings (suggesting a Bardwell address) and few mentions that someone was a member of the church. I have been unable to find evidence that this was anything other than a church, so it fails WP:GEOLAND. What I can find does not indicate a WP:GNG pass either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY of isolated churches who do not meet WP:GNG, so deletion looks like the best call, since List of churches in Carlisle County, Kentucky would almost certainly fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Mississippi Baptist Church is still there (in a modern building) and has a Facebook page. It's still more or less isolated and is clearly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geveden, Kentucky[edit]

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

This was a school, not a community (also, the name appears to be wrong). The only mention of Geveden in Rennick's Carlisle County book is someone's last name. The only Geveden mentioned in his index is a stream in Morgan County, on the other side of the state. The 1939 topographic map shows a "Cherry Geveden School", but other topos show nothing. Rennick's annotated topo has "Geveden N" handwritten at the site, but with no indication as to what it was. Searching for this place under the names Geveden and Geveden School bring up nothing except people with this last name, as the Gevedens appear to have been prominent in local law and politics. However, I did find this, calling it Cherry-Geveden School. Searching for Chery-Geveden School only yields me the above mention, and two more similar listings of the same sort. This place fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to have been a short lived rural school. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG 86.23.86.239 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best guess is that it was a short-lived school of some sort. Not a community and not otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – there's no evidence of notabillity here Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable school (at best) and fictitious community (at worst) per nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:34, 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 merge to Brainiac (character). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colu[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Another fictional location whose content is 100% WP:FANCRUFT (plot summary) and 0% real world significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussions of Colu appear numerous times in Comic Book Resources (seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia), it seems to be a key plot item in television show Supergirl, and also in Krypton. Coluans apparently created Brainiac (character), whose notability for Wikipedia is probably undeniable. I'm relatively new to AfD's, but my thinking is "what's the harm in keeping?" - AppleBsTime (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Seriously? The first source doesn't even mention the planet, just its inhabitants, in a single sentence: "She ended up joining the Big Brain, the hive mind of Coluans". That's a "doscussion of Colu" for you? Second source mentions the planet twice in passing purely in a plot summary fashion: "Back in Colu, Seg and Adam find the place where the ancient Coluans made Brainiac. ... While all that’s happening in Colu, something’s starting to stir up in Krypton." Double fail, and if those are the best sources out there, this is a good indicator this needs a speedy delete.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is off-putting to me. I thought maybe you should know that, but perhaps you already knew. This project is a volunteer operation. I'm not paid to take seriously your interjection of "Seriously?" and your accusation that I have somehow "double failed" in my effort to participate in a helpful way. - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am also not paid for volunteering here, and you have just wasted my - and others - time - again. You cited bad sources. I pointed it out. End of story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brainiac (character) - I admittedly haven't done a source check, but I am familiar enough with the topic to know that any prominence or notability this planet may have is largely associated with that character. Dark knight 2149 04:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brainiac (character) or delete. A minor location in the DC universe with no real significance outside of that character. Rhino131 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brainiac (character) per above. The only real notability of this fictional location is tied to the various versions of Brainiac, which should (and already is) covered in that article. A Redirect there would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brainiac (character). This place is often not even directly mentioned, just in the form "coluans", with no real discussion of Colu itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brainiac (character). I've looked for, and not found, any sources to suggest that Colu merits an article of its own. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:30, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghalla[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). So let's see. This is both 100% unreferenced and has zero claims of significance. Frankly, this is a reason why should have speedy deletion category for WP:FANCRUFT, which this is a classic example of - and why some people should be topic banned from deprodding. Anyway, I kindly suggest voting 'speedy delete' on this travesty and moving on, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced fancruft written completely in an in-universe style. The title might be useful as a redirect to some List of Fictional Locations article or other, but the content is hopeless and none of it would be suitable to merge anywhere. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is completely unsourced, and is barely about the actual location - most of the content here is just a list of how Legion members died. Searching for additional sources actually turns up very little - its mentioned in plot summaries of Legion stories, but that's it. With no actual discussion or indication of notability in reliable, secondary sources, it fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and fully agree that deprodder was doing his usual thing of holding the entire PROD process hostage to what appears to be petulance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. There is no discernible reason why this would ever be notable enough for a standalone article for all but the newest and most inexperienced Wikipedia editors which suggests a serious WP:CIR issue on the part of Andrew Davidson removing the PROD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:56, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Council (comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Considering the very sorry state of this article, there is really nothing else I can say here instead of shaking my head again at this WP:POINTless waste of time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced plot summary, with a bit of WP:OR thrown in on top. Searching for any additional sources turns up almost nothing on any of the three versions mentioned here, and what very little there that exists is merely mentions in plot summaries. The title of the article is also way too generic to ever be useful as a search term for a Redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very minor organization with no references and no notability. Rhino131 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:22, 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. Sandstein 09:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheminformatics toolkits[edit]

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

Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article) The Banner talk 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, non notable list members can be removed. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a product directory. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable is not defined by having its own article (WP:LISTN. Christian75 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The notes section indicates some of the entries are notable enough to be listed (in agreement with @Christian75 on that one). However, notability was only established by that means on a few of them. The article needs to fill out the notes section to other publications which discuss these toolkits as a means of establishing the notability of each entry. Ones with no references are not notable and should be deleted, IMO.Footlessmouse (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Paul Carpenter and Christian75. It could seriously be questioned whether nominators qualification "Advertising" meets WP:AGF, especially when the reason for nominating is so poor. Eissink (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

See also Talk:Cheminformatics_toolkits#"notable" for a note on the unacceptable editing of the nominator. Eissink (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, here we see the classic action of Eissink. If he does not get what he wants, he start throwing personal attacks. In fact, I was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes of Paul Carpenter and others (a wish you supported): Keep and improve, non notable list members can be removed. But then it should be clear that the listed items must be notable. The Banner talk 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make the listed items notable by adding "notable" to the definition. If you don't understand that, it is no surprise that you perceive opposition to your edit as a personal attack. Eissink (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ever heard of a selection criterion? The Banner talk 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found a source that describes and defines 'notability' as a selection criterion for cheminformatics toolkits, you would need to add that source (and preferably the definition also) to the article. It would perhaps explain why you redlinked all existing items on the list., although it would also bring the question as to why you decide to maintain your initial viewpoint that those toolkits are "all most all non-notable" and indeed to why you did not change your opinion on the deletion request as such, since your entire argument would then be gone. [striking these lines, after edit conflict, since user worded the intention to comply. So please now provide us your source. Eissink (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The linking was to give an insight of how many articles had actually an article (not too many). And no, I do not have to give a source of the notability as a selection criterion. It is widely used as such. The Banner talk 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it still seems to me that you confuse the notability of the list items with the definition of the subject, which would of course be shameful beyond words – especially given your stubborn reverts of my reasoned undoing – because it would show a lack of knowledge of even the very basics of logic (and thus question the more why, for instance, you keep wanting to delete articles on subjects that you don't master). But maybe I'm wrong, which you can easily show by providing us a source that says that "notability" is an essential, or at least reasonable part of the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. If you cannot do so, I will feel free to remove the word 'notable' again, to avoid a trip to ANI. Eissink (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, your edit war was based on nothing. And I stop playing your games, as you clearly are unable to distinguish between notability of a subject and notability as a selection criterion of a list. Bye. The Banner talk 08:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word. Do yourself a favor and don't revert. Eissink (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have reinstated the selection criterion. Stop editwarring. The Banner talk 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe this is really happening. Eissink (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am not surprised that you do not understand the concept of a selection criterion and started crying on WP:AN/I. The Banner talk 17:51, 16 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. Per additional sourcing added since nomination meeting WP:V and GNG. (commonly known around here as HEY) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Airways Flight 411[edit]

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

Not notable incident. The article isn't referenced and Aviation Safety Network doesn't have an entry for it. Is it a hoax? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable, and may actually be a WP:HOAX. I cannot find RS. If this article is a hoax we could use a G1. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found WP:SIGCOV when using Greek search terms: [17] [18] TV show (Μία στις χίλιες (1994) the source in the article Jumpytoo Talk 01:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few more Greek sources covering the story to be found if search is done by using the captain's name, Σήφης Μιγάδης. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some other sources when I searched for it in English, so the incident clearly not a hoax. Also, because it continues to appear in a variety of recent sources like the ones that Jumpytoo provided, the article also meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:PERSISTENCE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am trying to understand why we would keep this article We are WP:NOTNEWS, this event does not pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING with anything more than a mention. Because it was not a hoax does not make it notable by default. I see no significance in terms of aviation history. Wm335td (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I agree with you that this article does not meet WP:GEOSCOPE. The guideline states that if an event has had a significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread social group, it may be notable enough for inclusion. The fact that this event seems to be covered regularly at the national level in Greece makes it seem like it has had a long-term significant impact over there. I also fail to see how this article violates WP:NOTNEWS. I'm pretty sure that WP:NOTNEWS only applies to breaking news, original reporting, single events, and routune reporting. Again, the fact that this event has repeatedly received significant coverage over the years makes it seem like WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have to be consistent with notability for aircraft incidents where there is no loss nor harm to human life. WP:ROTM aircraft incident. -- Whiteguru (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiteguru: An aircraft incident is notable only if there is great loss of human life ? What about an exceptional case (like this is supposed to be according to the Greek sources) that the captain faced a very dangerous situation and calmly managed to save the lives of the passengers, and perhaps of even more people, those of the residents of the city area that the plane would have otherwise chashed ? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an almost-crash of a 747 which narrowly avoided a great loss of life is "run of the mill", I never want to be anywhere near the airlines the previous !voter flies. The statement that loss or harm to life is a necessary factor for notability is not sustained anywhere in our policies and is contradicted by articles such as British Airways Flight 9, KLM Flight 867, Eastern Air Lines Flight 855, Gimli Glider, and possibly the most famous airliner gliding incident, US Airways Flight 1549 a/k/a the "Miracle on the Hudson". Searching for "Σήφης Μιγάδης Ολυμπιακη" (i.e., "Sifis Migadis Olympic" in Greek) brings up a large number of significant, independent, reliable sources that easily meet WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've updated the article and I would like to submit it for Heymann Standard consideration. There are enough sources to show that this was definitely not a hoax article. I would have liked to expand it even more, but the Hellenic Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board website is offline currently. Aviation Safety Network's database is not completely comprehensive and a WP:BEFORE in Greek shows more than enough sources to demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Pinging previous delete !voters (WilliamJE— Lightburst— Wm335td— Whiteguru). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user's Eggishorn reasoning of October 8th. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has improved since nomination. Seems a significant incident. Lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Open Institute[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional article about non-notable unregistered private 'university'. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG and WP:V. Proposing AfD after speedy deletion request was objected to by the creating editor. Possibly re-creation of previously deleted article(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Promotional article on a non notable private institution of higher learning. Celestina007 (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also a possible COI here: the creating editor's handle looks suspiciously like an abbreviation of the name of the institute in question, which could explain the insistence to keep recreating the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy?) An article by WP:SPA Iopeni setting out the wares of an unregistered private institution. The sources are primary/listings which do not support the article's claims; the unsupported claim in the introduction also appears to be adapted from the National Open University of Nigeria article. Searches are finding nothing better, falling far short of notability. We are at AfD because the article creator removed the G11 speedy template, which is not permitted. If others agree, perhaps this should be a WP:SNOW delete? AllyD (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article with no real encyclopaedic value. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 10:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self sourced, promo article. // Timothy :: talk 18:04, 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 merge and redirect. Zoglophie (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Denmark Masters[edit]

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

Tournament cancelled by BWF Zoglophie (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Denmark Open - needs no more than a couple of lines of prose in the main article explaining why the tournament was cancelled Spiderone 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: as an obvious case, can I proceed further (Non-admin closure)? Zoglophie (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoglophie: I would agree that this is non-controversial so I would have no problem with closing this and redirecting Spiderone 06:41, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalRadioTracker (DRT)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Plenty of refs but many are simply passing mentions and others are marketing blogs etc. Nothing of substance and certainly not multiple refs from reliable and independent sources. Searches reveal more of the same. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolute G11. Deb (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first reaction was to say "Delete", but then when I saw how many press releases and blogs were being used as sources, I changed to "Delete with heat". Then when I saw that the company is promoting "Augmented Reality Technology" for an audio tracking algorithm, I thought "Delete with a flaming torch of anger". Then when I looked at the article's main author and got a very strong paid-editor-working-for-$10-an-hour-from-a-country-in-South-Asia vibe, I settled on "Delete with a searing hot flame thrower of purity". - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy delete - Non-notable promotional article, eve if it was notable the content of the article needs a WP:TNT. Jumpytoo Talk 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the monitoring platform aside from a PR Newswire article. I don't know if this has any relation to the one providing data for Cashbox. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but especially per AppleBsTime. His comment is very funny. :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's very promotionaly and probably not notable Spudlace (talk) 03:59, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schelp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to concern a television executive. The only 2 existing references only mention subject in passing. As per WP:BEFORE I've looked around and there doesn't seem to be any substantive coverage of the subject at all. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. ƒin (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. We almost always delete producers here, who are usually run of the mill. I only see a single interview in a reliable source; that falls far short of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 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 speedy delete by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen mavi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, student union leader, not notable.--Hippeus (talk) 11:17, 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 keep. Sandstein 14:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this page for deletion on behalf of WhatIsAPoggers per discussion on the user talk page, as the user failed to nominate this page for an AfD discussion. I myself am neutral on deletion (though I did deprod this page earlier). Java Hurricane 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting Poggers' reasoning from the PROD: Article gives undue weight to pseudoscientific eugenicists such as Richard Lynn. It's not clear why this deserves its own article, as dysgenics has no evidence of being a widely accepted term outside of eugenicist circles. In addition, the weak amount of content here could be fit under a dysgenics tab in the article discussing eugenics. Lastly, this page is also scarcely edited and visited as evidenced by its edit history, which takes mere moments to go back to 2018 and beyond. The criteria for deletion I am citing are: G3 of speedy deletion, A7 citing the unnecessary state of dysgenics being its own article as opposed to a subpage in the eugenics article, as well as #5, #6, and #8 on the deletion policy owing to the reliance on largely one pseudoscientific source for information, the lack of established notability independent of eugenicist sources, and lack of reason to be independent from the eugenics article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4,500 views a month, the subject appears covered in numerous scientific journals. Sure the article could use some fixing for POV, but deletion is not cleanup. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The prod was improper as the topic has been previously kept at AfD. The topic is clearly notable – for example, here's an entire book on the subject. There seems to be a history of disruption here and so we should shut this down quickly. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a glancing search yielded enough information for a stand-alone article as well as establishing notability. Nom's PROD rationale is clearly invalid, and the nom should, in my opinion, read WP:NOTCLEANUP. Java Hurricane 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to reopen the discussion for deletion. I previously have suggested this be deleted via a proposal for deletion, however as this was rejected I would like to appeal with a discussion here. I would like to outline my reasons as follows, as well as give a brief response to the concerns listed as to why the criteria I suggested may apply.

G3 - While there was disagreement owing to G3 as this article is said to not be a hoax, I would like to disagree on that subject. Specifically, dysgenics is not a widely accepted area in science; its only modern discussion, viewing Google Scholar, as an independent concept is through Richard Lynn and those affiliated with him, with prior discussion being over 80 years old. Its other usages on the web are merely as a word to describe genetic deterioration and not as an independent concept; as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need to implement an article on an idea that is solely promoted by those widely regarded among scientific authorities as pseudoscientific, and the creation of an article lends the idea a false sense of credibility as a concept.

A7 - The responder suggested I did not read the criteria, and while I have, I do understand the reason for concern. I cited it as the article lacks clear importance, however I can understand the reason for concern as it is not clear that A7 can apply to philosophical or scientific ideas, especially those in pseudoscience. I do accept that A7 may not apply to the article, however I would nonetheless like to bring up a discussion of whether the article warrants being its own piece independnet of a subcategory of the eugenics article, or something perhaps similar. I do not believe it meets the criteria, as it is not a widely recognized term in the sciences. There is no indication of any scholarly discussion of it as a term or concept, even scientifically, beyond that of Richard Lynn and his company, and a handful of studies responding to the concept of genetic deterioration at large in the field of IQ research. Given the low scope, there is little need for this to be an article; one can include the brief discussion of the concept of dysgenics in the eugenics article, and a brief discussion of the rebuttal in other discussions of IQ & fertility on Wikipedia. Including them together in one article is thus unnecessary.

I would also like to cite #5, #6, and #8 on the deletion policy. This is due to the fact that the article almost exclusively lies on Richard Lynn for information on dysgenics as an applied concept, and as detailed prior attempts to pull up additional information largely only reveal those affiliated with him discussing the concept. In the broader scientific and specifically genetic community, this is not discussed nor is there evidence that it is treated seriously as an idea. This would additionally make sense, owing to the fact that genetic changes are exclusively brought about by changes in fitness, or what is most successful at reproduction, and as such there is no such thing as 'bad genes' or those that can be said to be undesirable, merely those that are most adaptive to a given environment.

To cite the concerns listed specifically, the citations on Google Scholar immediately pull up Richard Lynn's book, which is the only one on the topic. Richard Lynn is a noted eugenicist and pseudoscientist who is repeatedly bashed for his poor methodology and appeals to scientific racism to justify his white nationalist political views. This book is no exception, as the concept is only discussed prior by other eugenicists. The further evidence for this is apparent on Scholar, as the next citation is William Shockley, yet another noted eugenicist, in an article in which he uses it as a shorthand for retogenesis of evolution. After that, there is the Nunes article which is cited; this article can be said to be the only citation independent from usage among eugenicists, with the next couple independent citations being of reviews of Lynn's book. Following that is a biology discussion from 1985 with 4 citations that uses it merely as a metaphor and does not discuss the concept. Following that is an article by Bardis 1974 with no citations that provides a definition of dysgenics. After that is a PDF to a far right book released in 2019 with no citations by Michael Stark The pages following have no citations and are largely just reviews of Lynn's book, obscure eugenics papers from the early 20th century mentioning it offhandedly, obscure nonacademic articles and other works by Stark, almost none of which have citations. The most cited thing mentioning eugenics, save for Lynn's book, is this book chapter (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Shaping_the_American_Educational_State_1/2jMQAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=dysgenics) which only utilizes it as a name in relation to discussions of racism, rather than discussing the concept in of itself.

I think it can be said, then, that there is no substantiative discussion of it in the modern era that is independent of Richard Lynn, with the vast majority of pages mentioning it being in relation to Lynn's works or that of other far right ideologues; this was all derived from only the first few pages of Google Scholar, and indicates how utilizing just a glance into the subject is inadequate as Lynn's work inflates the citation count for areas actually discussing the subject in of itself rather than using it as a shorthand or definitional term. There is little need to have an independent article on the subject, then, especially since the content here can be easily usurped under the Richard Lynn article or that of others as previously mentioned. WhatIsAPoggers (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I think the argument of WhatIsAPoggers is that this is an older concept adopted by far-right ideologues. I'm checking Wikipedia policies, and I don't find that anywhere as a rationale for deletion of ideas that are widely discussed, culturally speaking. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are good references available and even present in the current version too. Obivously there is a scope to make it a good start, but definitly not worth deleting. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard_Lynn#Dysgenics_and_eugenics. Except for two sentences on the history of the term in the lede, and the "in fiction" section (which is OR), there is nothing here that isn't already covered in that subsection. Really, it's all "Lynn wrote X and other people reacted by writing Y" - that is exactly what Richard_Lynn#Dysgenics_and_eugenics already covers. - This is more of a housekeeping concern though. Certainly there are no notability issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concept long predates Lynn. Eminent people like Huxley and Inge were writing about this before Lynn was born. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of dysgenics was largely obscure and solely definitional before Lynn. As he is the sole one promoting this currently, and as this concept lacks much significance beyond him, I would like to support the merge proposal as well, given what I originally detailed. WhatIsAPoggers (talk) 00:35, 16 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. There is consensus to not keep this article. There is no consensus about whether a dab page is needed at this title. So everybody is free to create one, and others can then contest that at XfD if they want to. Sandstein 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winklevoss twins[edit]

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

The twins are notable, and hence they have their own, longer and more developed articles: Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss. This page should be a disambig, its current de facto WP:POVFORK existence is not helpful to the readers. There was a RfC on the article's talk page a few years back which seemed to have a majority for merging the two articles on individuals into the twins article, but this was never done, and the articles on each individual have grown since and are B-class, but this POVFORK remains a start-class. Pinging participants of that RfC: User:BDD (op), User:Dezastru, User:Abhayakara , User:Kaldari , User:Ayzmo and User:Dinovettri. I think it is better two have articles about each person, as they seem to be individually notable per NBIO, with the article here becoming a disambig (there is probably little if anything worth merging). Either way, we don't need three articles about two individuals. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. A set of twins is not a separate entity. There are already articles about each person. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople . Their "twinness" is not a notable detail, unlike Chang and Eng Bunker, so it doesn't require a standalone article. This is also not suitable for a dab page (neither individual is a "twins"). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, that the two sesperate articles for each of the twins covers the topic sufficiently. This article is redundant. Jmbranum (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholeheartedly agree with nominator, I think a redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople as suggested above would be confusing for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie lt3 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that the page be edited into a different format. Another rival discussion agreed a merger. None of these things require deletion. It is best to keep the edit history of all relevant pages so that we can understand the confusion of this case and attribute it to those responsible. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have no objection to soft delete as the outcome (disambig without hard deletion of history). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. There is no information here that is not or cannot easily be in the individual articles. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as disambiguation page I started this page as a disambiguationpage here and it should be restored as a disambiguation page, I wouold have done it myself if I had realised that the disambiguation page was wrongly removed! ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DAB per Richard. It is a plausible search term, and WP should provide a suitable landing spot. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to dab per above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if that is the appropriate terminology) to a disambiguation page that points readers to each of the twins' individual biographies. This pairing of two brothers doesn't rise to the level of, say, Walton family. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to DAB - The article is redundant to the articles on the two individuals. But, the term is a very plausible search term and a disambiguation page would be helpful in navigation to those individual articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not disambiguate. Per Clarityfiend, this is not an ambiguous term, where either individual can equally be referred to by the phrase. If it was kept, it would at best be a set index, but is probably better redirected somewhere along the lines of the unsigned proposal by User:Katie lt3 above to redirect to List of twins#Businesspeople. BD2412 T 04:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing admin: this discussion has no more authority to deem this unambiguous phrase "ambiguous" than it does to deem the page at issue a Featured Article. BD2412 T 04:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Disambiguate, that is, make the page refer readers to each twin, but do not create a Winklevoss twins (disambiguation) page. Otherwise, delete as the fact that they are twins is not notable. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 17:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What POV is this supposed to be pushing as POVFORK? --BDD (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this is just melodramatic language, which Piotrus seems to have a habit of using with the (I hope false) belief that it improves the odds of his various calls for the deletion of articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: Per reasons above and nominator. The twins are both notable on their own. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no benefit to actual deletion, and in practice, the current article works just fine to disambiguate, with prominent links to each twin's individual article. A true disambiguation page is nonsensical: there aren't two people (or other topics) each referred to as "Winklevoss twins", just the twins themselves. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 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. I'm not at this time creating redirects because most of these women have participated in several beauty pageants, which means that editors interested in such topics should decide which if any event these articles should redirect to. They may request undeletion via WP:REFUND as needed if any content is to be merged to the redirect targets. Sandstein 12:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Allison Baeyens[edit]

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

The biography meets the black-letter definition of what should not be an article as spelled out at the BLP1E policy, reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The biography essentially notes a person who was obscure, obtained the 12-month regional title, did not obtain a more notable title, and returned to obscurity. Maintaining as a sub-stub attracts a bunch of false, promotional, or just plain unverifiable claims about the subject. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar non-notables linked from Miss International 2019, Miss Earth 2019 and Miss World 2019.

Miss Earth 2019

Miss World 2019

Miss International 2019

🧦 = created by sockmaster/sockpuppet

Additionally, in many cases, they have been substantially created by persistent sockfarms probably acting to promote the events or related media outlets (e.g. Vavrušková, edited by MissCDO2019 or Milena Sadowska, created by a sock and the edit history dominated by at least five more). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Paola Torres is also an actress, so I listed this discussion at the Actors and filmmakers delsort page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article says she is an actor but doesn't provide anything to verify that. In fact there are exactly two sources in the article and one is missosology.info web forum and the other missosology.org, both of which are unacceptable per WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, but I left them alone for the duration of this AfD. - Bri.public (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Usually I oppose mass deletion, but having checked all of the nominated articles I want to support the nominator. The sources in all of the articles talk only about one event - there's no more significant coverage. Less Unless (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the Roxanne Allison Baeyens article which cited plethora of third party reliable sources or significant sources (45 sources). The biography did not cover the person only in the context of a single event. In fact, there are multiple reliable sources that can be found online about the subject in multiple events, multiple languages, and different years. She won the national search for the Miss Tourism Philippines with multiple reliable sources: (e.g, ABS-CBN News, Philippine Canadian Inquirer, GMA Network News. She also competed internationally and won second place in the Miss Tourism & Culture Universe and received multiple reliable sources (e.g., The Philippine Star, Manila Standard, Good News Philippines) In 2020, she obtained another notable national title, Miss Philippines Earth 2020 and received multiple reliable sources (e.g., CNN, ABS-CBN, GMA Network News, Rappler, Manila Times, The Manila Standard, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, and etc., refer to the article for the actual sources cited). The article also met WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Sources cited are reliable, independent, and coverage is significant. Also WP:BASIC states “People who meet the basic criteria (see WP:GNG) may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria”. ---17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Roxanne Allison Baeyens also meets the WP:ENTERTAINER since she has done multiple TV commercials such as Jack 'n jill, Axe, Nescafé among others shown in multiple nationwide television channels in the Philippines with an estimated 109,581,078 people at mid year according to 2020 UN data.---Richie Campbell (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've adequately explained how WP:ENTERTAINER applies to television commercials. Are you claiming that e.g. a Nescafé commercial is a "notable...other production"?? -- Bri.public (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject above (Baeyens) is a model; I have cited the TV Commercial products she has done, not that WP:ENTERTAINER applies to television commercials. WP:NMODEL is part of the WP:ENTERTAINER.---Richie Campbell (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me, because your words are the subject "meets WP:ENTERTAINER since she has done multiple TV commercials such as ... Nescafé", but then you said you are "not [asserting] that WP:ENTERTAINER applies to television commercials"; I guess I'll step back and let the closer of this debate figure it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete all without prejudice ; no notability beyond pageant. At best, some of them may be salvaged by merging basic info into the pageant pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to event if they have a notable finalist finish and won some side awards like Miss Congeniality or something. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re: Milena Sadowska. Polish Wikipedia assumes all winners of Miss Polonia are notable by default, as the winners of the Polish biggest and oldest beauty pageant (see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2020:10:11:Milena Sadowska). That said, while I considered 'weak keep' for her, there is zero coverage of her outside winning the award, so per WP:ONEVENT, having her name mentioned in the Miss Polonia winners should be enough so I suggest soft deletion and redirect for her. I did not have time to review the other entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all of these people are non-notable beauty pageant contestants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and draft per above. Fails WP:NMODEL. ApprenticeFan work 13:39, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidetalk[edit]

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

non-notable street comedian, no meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A creative project that gets a write-up in a student newspaper is not yet "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. I would reconsider my vote if there were more and better sources, but I found none. Not to mention, the author of the article seems to have approached Wikipedia as "let's get past this pesky auto-confirm threshold, then pop this non-notable article into Main space". - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:49, 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.

[1] ttps://www.wordsense.eu/pichenotte/

[2] ttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pichenotte

[3] ttps://www.pichenotte.com/pichenotte-trademark/

[4] ttp://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

[5] ttps://www.mcq.org/en/

[6] ttps://www.mcq.org/en/

[7] ttps://collections.mcq.org/objets/76963

[8] ttps://collections.mcq.org/objets/81406

[9] ttp://www.worldcrokinole.com/thegame.html

[10] ttps://www.pichenotte.com/tournament-rules-dec-2018/

[11] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20111107033543/http://www.fqjr.qc.ca/pichenot/fr/regles.html

[12] <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/croquignole>

[13] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=pichenotte+crokinole&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:A425C._piche_vs_croke1.jpg

[14] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=pichenotte+crokinole&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:A425C._piche_vs_croke1.jpg

[15] ttp://knipsbrat.com/pichenotte.html

[16] ttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/246571/pichenotte-hockey

[17] ttps://crokinole.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/book1-b.jpg

[18] ttps://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Gazette_08_26_20_FINAL-5.pdf

[19] ttp://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_mall_pdf_1.pdf

[20] ttp://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_second_st_pdf_7.pdf

[21] ttp://www.pichenotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/border_100_albq_journ_jpg_2.pdf

[22] ttps://www.picuki.com/tag/pichenottegame

[23] ttps://www.picuki.com/media/1970147651362463394

[24] ttps://www.picuki.com/media/1418510301346793730

[25] ttps://www.picuki.com/media/1527995846694851666

[26] ttps://www.picuki.com/media/1524870362437054634

[27] ttps://www.picuki.com/media/945886142124624677

[28] ttp://www.worldcrokinole.com/photos2015.html

[29] ttps://www.facebook.com/lejouetantique/photos/jeu-de-pichenotte-tout-fait-de-bois/1428302400753132/

[30] ttps://www.varagesale.com/i/7hpwtwha-jeu-de-pichenotte

[31] ttps://www.ebay.com/itm/193407221347?ViewItem=&item=193407221347

[32] ttps://www.varagesale.com/i/rxwq6xve-crokinole-board-jeu-de-pichenotte

[33] ttps://encanrivenord.hibid.com/lot/80051-103016-6198/jeu-de-pichenotte-vintage/

[34] ttps://www.pichenotte.com/photo-gallery-three/

[35] ttps://www.pichenotte.com/photo-gallery-three/

[36] Kelly, Wayne. The Crokinole Book (first edition). Erin, Ontario, Canada: Boston Mills. ISBN 0-919783-83-X.

[37] ttps://crokinole.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/book1-b.jpg

[38] ttps://www.picuki.com/profile/pichenotte_

[39] ttps://www.picuki.com/profile/princesse_pichenotte

[40] ttp://www.quebecjeux.org/portfolio/pichenottes/

[41] ttp://pichenottes.quebecjeux.org/fr/http://pichenottes.quebecjeux.org/fr/

[42] ttps://pitchnut.com/#

[43] ttps://crokinole.com/index.php/products/

[44] ttps://crokinole.com/index.php/products/

[45] ttps://worldcrokinole.com/kelly.html

[46] www.crokinole.com

[47] "Thompson made editor at Hamish Hamilton". The Bookseller. 7 March 2019.

[48] "Hermione Thompson". Penguin.

[49] "Hermione Thompson talks about The Water Cure". Penguin. 30 August 2018.

[50] "Three Editors In Three Countries Made 'The Water Cure' What It Is". Publishers Weekly. 14 December 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]