Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 February 17 >

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 redirect to Mustafa Sarıgül. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Change in Turkey[edit]

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

Short and poorly-sourced stub about a non-notable political party which hasn't won any seats and possibly not even contested any elections; there is nothing in the article stub to suggest other significance either. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I assume the reason the party hasn't contested any elections is that it was founded less than two months ago. That said, the only source provided is the party's own official website. Independent reliable sources would be needed to establish this party's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly you're right, about them being a new entrant to Turkish politics. But surely that only further illustrates their non-notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mustafa Sarıgül due to a lack of sources and notability. — csc-1 20:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per csc Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually there are some sources I found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The party is 2 months old but is already involved in some controversies. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per the sources I listed. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mustafa Sarıgül: Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. The source in the article is not IS RS with SIGCOV, the sources Styyx found are mainly coverage of Mustafa Sarıgül, others wouldn't be SIGCOV about either. Orgs don't inherit notability for individuals they are associated with. This might be TOOSOON, but CRYSTAL. Redirect is a good option.  // Timothy :: talk  03:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mustafa Sarıgül for now. The page can be always expanded in the future once/if the party becomes more prominent. Keivan.fTalk 20:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ... and with that I think we have consensus? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ladell McLin[edit]

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

Has only released one notable album with no Wikipedia article. Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. –Cupper52Discuss! 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. — csc-1 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Per a BEFORE, no RS found. —Kbabej (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. New3400 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have found several mentions in Le Parisien and the Verge, however they are trivial and don't pass WP:SIGCOV. Therefore I believe it's WP:TOOSOON for now. Less Unless (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Devokewater 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanullah (Kalat cricketer)[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage, clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial pass of NCRIC, but the presumption of notability afforded is extremely weak for such cricketers, and there is no evidence that WP:SIGCOV exists. Only available sources are wide-ranging databases, which may be enough for inclusion in a list (but no suitable one exists for NBP to merge/redirect to), but it is not good enough for a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hogan[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' six years ago. The rest of his football career has been at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per GS, the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL isn't valid when an article comprehensively fails GNG. I can only find trivial mentions in online Norwegian- and English-language sources, plus a few interviews with the subject (which likely don't count towards significant coverage). Jogurney (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a complete failure of GNG. It is time we stopped being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played in Eliteserien, a highly competitive tournament, therefore this article should not be deleted.User:morhveem (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that brief Q&As don't count towards WP:GNG. Since Hogan only just about passes WP:NFOOTBALL, I would say the GNG fail takes priority. Given his age, he has no credible chance of building on his one appearance at professional level. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Berg Hestad[edit]

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

Meets the silly WP:NFOOTBALL because he made a single, one-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' fifteen years ago. The rest of his career took place in the lower tiers and there is no evidence of WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and guidelines failure. Less Unless (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Herlofsen[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' six years ago, after which he promptly quit football to concentrate on his studies. There is no evidence of any sustained, non-routine coverage of the sort required to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and guidelines failure.Less Unless (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are sources about him but they all discuss the same subject [7] [8] [9] Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mërgim Hereqi[edit]

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

Meets the ludicrous WP:NFOOTBALL due to a one-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' 12 years ago. The rest of his football career has progressed at a much lower level and there is a lack of sustained, non-routine coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper GiantSnowman and guidelines failure. Less Unless (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets NFOOTBALL by skin of teeth only and almost zero coverage in searches so fails WP:GNG and, on balance, should be deleted Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Henanger[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL after making three brief substitute appearances (totalling six minutes) in an alleged 'fully professional league' 8-9 years ago. The rest of his football career progressed at a much lower level and there is little evidence of sustained, non-routine coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here - 6 minutes of play is not enough. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and guidelines' failure.Less Unless (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found a brief piece in Dagsavisen here and a Q&A on the website of a club that he used to play for but nothing more than that Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Hella[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single six-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' eight years ago. His football career before and since has been at a much lower, non-professional level. No evidence of sustained coverage in reliable third party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time we tightened football notability guidelines to require play in multiple games in fully professional leagues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesnt satisfy GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and guidelines' failure. Less Unless (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst he may technically pass NFOOTBALL there is clear consensus that he doesn't pass gng and his overall career trajectory indicates he is unlikely to anytime soon. Fenix down (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arent-Emil Hauge[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to making 3 brief substitute appearances (totalling 18 minutes) in an allegedly 'fully professional league' six years ago. Subsequently he has played at a much lower level and there is little evidence of WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here - 18 minutes of play is not enough. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total failure of GNG. If this person passes our notability guidelines for football players those need to be tightened so they better predict passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met, although it is not unanimous as to which sources apply towards GNG. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchs Mizrachi School[edit]

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

This is a weirder case of WP:NSCHOOL - while yes, there are a lot of articles that appear at first glance to be talking about the school, the harder you look, the less it actually says about the school. The one article I could find that talked about the school in depth was [10], and it was so flagrantly biased I couldn't use it at all. I could absolutely be wrong here, but I don't think this passes WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: This hasn't received any coverage at all from a non-regional source, and WP:NSCHOOL pretty clearly says that it has to follow WP:ORG, which this school fails. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NSCHOOL very clearly says it does not have to pass WP:ORG if it passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, my mistake, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EurekaLott: I found all of those articles. Yes, all of those are articles about the school, but there are significant problems with nearly all of them. The Cleveland Jewish news doesn't seem like a reliable source for anything beyond basic information. The remaining articles there are either not in-depth about Fuchs Mizrachi or not enough to show that the school is notable. In my opinion, the standard of multiple reliable, independent sources is not met, and this fails WP:GNG.Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that the sources don't meet your personal standards, but the facts remain that the Cleveland Jewish News is a respected source of local journalism and that we have non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The subject meets our criteria for inclusion. - Eureka Lott 23:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EurekaLott: First of all, the we/you choice of pronouns to imply that I'm somehow less of a wikipedian than you because you disagree with me is... just annoying. Second, The Cleveland Jewish News has not shown it can be fully neutral in coverage of the school, as shown by this article. Third, asserting that your opinion is the only possible correct one is not only wrong, it's counterproductive to any meaningful discussion. We do not have independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. The Cleveland Jewish News does not establish notability on its own. You disagree? That's fine. The WKYC article is pretty in-depth. I notice you're an administrator; you might do well to be far less condescending. Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cleveland Jewish News seems like a reliable news source. I think we should keep the article. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott and CanadianToast. School notability is a bit messy, but overall not the highest of bars compared to the level of coverage schools receive. Passes GNG. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to agree with Vaticidalprophet. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Arne Hanssen[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL by making a single, six-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' five years ago. The rest of his career has taken place at a much lower, regional level and there is a lack of WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that he looks to fail WP:GNG; coverage in a search was not substantial Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 14:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rishii Kumaar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No reason provided.

Non-notable graphic designer/digital manager; no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
: Hi this is Vivovin I have created article of a indian famous Creative director who worked so lot of film as creative director by mistake i have added their post as creative graphic designer and digital media name which I've removed immediatly, even you think why i have created article of creative director please see this man article Rajiv Rao he is also creative director even his work profile is not describe i am requesting please remove the templete of considered of deletion lets work to do more stablish this article (Thank you)Vivovin (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have you got any sources that discuss him directly and in detail? None of the sources that you have provided are about him. You have linked us to his IMDb but this clearly shows that he is just a crew member and a one-time assistant director. None of that is even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply- I have reviewed his IMDb where clearly mention 5 credits as creative and 1 credit of 1st assitant director and creative director also; creative director is a big post under comes the zone (Criteria) of Creative so please understand and judge the equal, I think he is a know person and working hard so his article should be here. Vivovin (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he is notable then where is the news coverage about him? Also 'working hard' is not a valid reason to have an article. I work hard, often more than 50 hours a week, but I don't deserve an article. Kumar is a normal hard working man, not a notable leading Bollywood figure. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vivovin - so is there anything covering Kumar other than his IMDb page and his personal Facebook account? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After posting to Wikiprojects and 2nd relist, few new comments. Fairly detailed, policy and source-grounded keep rationale which was supported offset by some rather basic delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomtown, Kentucky[edit]

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

Another one that after further research does not appear to be notable. The GNIS entry, which is not linked but is located here, is sourced to Rennick. Not all of the Rennick-sourced entries are spurious (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barebone, Kentucky, but many have proven to be so. Topos show two homes and a couple non-residence buildings at an isolated crossroads; there is a Tom Town Road in the area. Newspapers.com results are for the road, scanner errors, and references in the serialization of a novel titled "The Old Silver Trail" by Mary E. Stuckney. Not in Rennick's Carroll County directory, index, or Carroll County post offices]. Google books brings up the Tomtown Road, a Tomtown Tunnell, and some hits for the place in "The Old Silver Trail". Unless "The Old Silver Trail" turns out to be some sort of factual local history (I'm seeing no evidence, as it was published as a novel by Lippincott in 1896), I don't see how WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. As with Barebone, it's possible I missed something, in which case I would like to be corrected. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I would guess there might have been some town here (for the tunnel to be named after) but doggedly I'm going to stick with WP:GNG and say that a settlement whose only documentation is an exhaustive list isn't notable. Searching produced nothing beyond the tunnel, and while I can see where that was, (it has been daylighted) nothing convinces me that there was much recognition of the few houses to the west as a town with a name. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky in the entry for English, Kentucky states the following "Carroll Co.'s common schools were not organized comprehensively until 1867. At that time, English Station School was designated as District 15. Other schools near English Station included Tomtown, District 17, on the West Fork of Mill Creek." I suspect the reason this settlement isn't showing up in newspapers is because it pre-dates most of them and had ceased to exist prior to their first publication. The encyclopedia entry references two works which may have more details (Campbell, Justine Tandy, History of the Carroll County Schools, 1976 and Gentry, Mary Ann. A History of Carroll County, 1984). This map clearly shows it was the largest settlement in the district after English. This is a verified settlement with a school, so passes WP:GEOLAND, and we shouldn't delete it simply because it's not discussed in detail in Google Books or Newspapers.com online sources per WP:NEXIST. ----Pontificalibus 09:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find it a bit odd that (one) search returned weather reports for a ghost town. Other than this particular oddity, search does not return any reliable sources on this location. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment For anyone interested I've found an interesting website called 'North Kentucky Views'. Some takeaways:
Maps post-1899 don't seem to contain Tomtown, which might indicate that sometime between 1883 and 1899 the settlement ceased having any significance.
Here's an old photo and a newspaper transcript about a crash near the Tomtown tunnel (no mention of Tomtown). Also some related pictures on this page about 'English'. Caroll county page here Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Waage Hansen[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' ten years ago. The rest of his career has been played out at a much lower level and there is little evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he gets some name checks in local papers but nothing to suggest that WP:GNG is met Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after two relists, no good sources have cropped up. Nonetheless, there is clearly no consensus for deletion (nor for keeping). No prejudice against re-nomination after a few months if no good sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Xirotiris[edit]

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

Nothing indicates they meet any of the points at WP:NACADEMIC. I have also been unable to find any substantial independent coverage of the person in reliable sources. --IWI (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its only reference is a dead link. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first of two sources marked as external links is an obituary in a major newspaper, Kathimerini. It appears to be independent and written by the newspaper, not a paid obituary from a family member. So it should contribute towards WP:GNG, but we need more than one in-depth source, and the other two currently in the article (its footnote and other extlink) don't look as promising. It looks likely that Greek-speaking editors would be necessary to find other sources, if they exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current sources, it's not notable. Would probably be hard to find anything from that time frame online. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the editor who added the aforementioned external links to the article. Beside those sources I didn't find (at least in the net) in-depth coverage; only a couple of in passing references on him, like this one in French ([13], p. 114) by Prof. Emeritus of the Thessaloniki Univeristy Alesxandros Dagkas and Stavros Kamaroudis, Senior lecturer at the University of Western Macedonia. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is some notability here as per comments from the users above. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searches didn't turn up significant academic writings to show notability nor did I find significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. However, I'll admit my searches were limited to being in English and via computer. If someone finds coverage to show notability please ping me. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @Bearian:: Dear Bearian, My understanding is that he was head of a university department of education and that he - his department - was pushing for a particular type of education so was not a school educator.Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Dear Bearian... sorry for my mistake... I think we could do with a source for his professorship at the Graduate School of Industrial Studies of Thessaloniki.. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Msrasnw: He was principal of an elementary and secondary education school attached to the University of Thessaloniki. Afterwards he became professor at the Graduate School of Industrial Studies of Thessaloniki, an independent faculty of business studies that later became the core of what is now the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki [14]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalk19: Dear Chalk, thanks for this and clarrifying think - pointing out my error - lack of full understanding. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Is this "The Experimental School of the University of Thessaloniki, as its title states, is a distinctive school which is affiliated with the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The Supervisor of the school, a Professor of the Department of Education of the Faculty of Philosophy, was appointed by the Senate of the University" from here (https://pspth.edu.gr/about_pspth/) helpful - does it mean he was a Professor of the Department of Education at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki when he was there? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Dear Msrasnw, there is a Supervisor ("Επόπτης" in Greek) and there is a Principal ("Διευθυντής") of the school. The former is member of the faculty; the latter is a secondary education teacher. So there is some confusion to this point and a misconception: Xirotyris didn't succeed professor Delmouzos (who was the founder and first Supervisor, and a prominent 20th century Greek educator and reformer) but was appointed Principal at the instigation of Alexandros Delmouzos ("με παρότρυνση του Αλέξανδρου Δελμούζου", in the Kathimerini obituary listed as an extarnal link). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chalk19... and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per obituary, emeritus professor and founder of a school seems notable to me and has independent sources (obituary). --hroest 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps not a clear-cut case, but there is a general consensus that Martensdale is notable Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martendale, California[edit]

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

For once, Durham's account is repeated more or less accurately, but as it turns out, his information is mistaken. In Froese, Brian (2014). California Mennonites. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 35–36. Retrieved 2021-01-27. the true story of Martens's scheme is revealed: there was no Martendale and never would be, because he didn't actually own any of the land at the place. Froese's sources for this passage are collections of settler accounts from Mennonite churches. I was unable to come up with other sources for the same statement. Land scams in California are not exactly uncommon, and I'm not convinced that this one is a notable example. I'm also dubious about it being notable as a not-community. But others may have further suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have a spelling issue here. The book cited above (California Mennonites) gives reference to Martens moving to Martensdale. Not Martendale. So search, Books brings two references, Programmable Search Engine brings Find a Grave and an image, and here is an image of Martensdale, circa 1909,1910. That's google image search, corrected to Martensdale. Another Google search brings an Iowa sports team and ten more pages or results. Consider. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This indicates that there was actually a colony there before the fraud was discovered, and that it was "progressing prosperously". [15] The post office is also legitimate, and there were a number of stores there. Described as a town in 1909. This was definitely a real place. More coverage at [16], [17], [18]. Whole chunk of coverage here. I think the sum of all that is enough to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with Hog Farm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Martensdale, California in light of the information above. Smartyllama (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Three sentences long and one reference, no proof of notability. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the information found about Martensdale. I additionally found [19] and [20] which seems to talk about "Henry J. Martens" and a land scheme which might well have been a fraud? Seems to be historically significant so I would suggest a keep and move to Martensdale, California.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after NAC. There is developing consensus that it is notable under its new name but relisting given that this remains disputed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This relist was unnecessary. Consensus is clear that it's notable, the only delete !vote is literally just going around to random town articles !voting delete with the same response. What a waste of a week of editors' time. Smartyllama (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got to agree with that as well. While I agree that the NAC itself was inappropriate, I don't think Blubablua9990's !vote should be given much weight. It clearly doesn't take WP:NEXIST into account, and is just looking at the shape the article is in without taking into account the sources provided in the AFD. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. No consensus to keep or delete, but a strong suggestion to draftify, which should accommodate all. Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Education[edit]

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

The article lacks sourcing. It was quite promotional before I axed it. An AfC draft that fell through the cracks. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the source so it can be added to the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that this article is lacking sourcing. The source provided does not meet WP:RS and doesn't show notability. Redoryxx (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 keep, 2 Delete (including nominator), close call. Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (or re-draftify_ for rewriting. The verfsion that should be judged for potential is [21] , before 90% of the content had been removed as promotional -- it was promotional , but it needs shortening and rewriting, not removal.But there's no version which is really satisfactory for mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify As I agree with DGG about the current state of things. Perhaps we can get the delete voter to go with draftify also. Since it seems like a reasonable option. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the late suggesting of DRAFTIFY, relisting for a third time to see if there can be more consensus for that option or for some other outcome (delete or keep both having received support).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per DGG. The topic is notable, but the content needs some workshopping. StarM 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify as second choice. There are enough sources to establish notability, but the article does need work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eivind Andreassen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "this isn't uncontroversial. this and this seem like decent coverage". Unfortunately two WP:ROUTINE articles in his local paper are not indicative of WP:GNG being met for this postman/part-time footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he never played in a 'fully professional league'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG (no significant coverage) and NFOOTBALL (Norwegian league was not "fully pro" until 1991 at the earliest, or 2001 as FPL currently stands - though I note this is again disputed/under discussion). If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Betts[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and musician, not properly referenced as passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim as a musician is that he was a member of a non-notable band, and the only notability claim as an actor is that he's had roles -- and the only "sources" are his IMDb profile and the phrase "He was my history teacher in french immersion at Caledonia Regional High School", none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, neither actors nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires much more evidence of significance than just saying that he exists, and much better sources than just IMDb and people claiming inside personal knowledge. The only reason I'm not speedying this is that it's been flying under the radar for over a decade. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roar Gulliksen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "disagree with deletion nom". Article fails WP:NFOOTY as the handful of top Norwegian men's football league appearances came several years before the league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG on the evidence of the included sources, which are conspicuously offline in character, but judging by the titles appear to be trivial mentions. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG (no significant coverage) and NFOOTBALL (Norwegian league was not "fully pro" until 1991 at the earliest, or 2001 as FPL currently stands - though I note this is again disputed/under discussion). If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the best source that I could find was this, which falls short of the mark. I can't see clear evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fjetland[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "meets WP:NFOOTY as he played in Eliteserien". This is incorrect per WP:FPL because the Norwegian men's football league was not 'fully professional' until some time after 2001, while this player's handful of appearances came in 1989 (while he was working as a postman). The sources included in the article are trivial mentions, falling short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he played in Eliteserien. Also note all the other deletion discussions the editor has started which has been kept. This discussion should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL.Mentoz (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that the Norwegian league wasn't fully pro until 2001 needs to be sourced, and is a discussion that should be taken elsewhere. Mentoz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG (no significant coverage) and NFOOTBALL (Norwegian league was not "fully pro" until 1991 at the earliest, or 2001 as FPL currently stands - though I note this is again disputed/under discussion). If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Bring back Daz Sampson: - the sources [22] [23] [24] look to be enough to show notability when added to the ones already in the article Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. GiantSnowman 10:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Fridh[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "does not fail NFOOTY, played for Malmo in Swedish FPL". Does fail WP:NFOOTY because the Swedish league was not 'fully professional' in 1989. More importantly, article subject heavily fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - who says that the Swedish league wasn't fully professional in 1989? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence has been presented for the claim that "the Swedish league was not fully professional in 1989" and nothing of the sort is mentioned at WP:FPL. Open to changing my !vote if nom can present such evidence. Smartyllama (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Swedish football, thanks. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back Daz Sampson - If you believe that the Allsvenskan was not always fully professional then please start a discussion at WT:FPL. This has consequences in terms of notability for potentially hundreds of footballers so it would be best to have consensus there before we decide that players before a certain year no longer pass NFOOTBALL. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FPL has the Swedish Allsvenskan as being fully-pro, so this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and also possibly strengthened by playing in Norway, Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improvements though.BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There must be room for improvement in the article, and what's this witch-hunt against our FPL list? Govvy (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - If we are assuming that he does pass WP:NFOOTY, I am just wondering if that one appearance for Malmo FF was from a sub appearance or an actual start. Currently passing due to appearing in the Norweigan league at the exact date that they are putting up for now (1991) but of course things can and probably will change. HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this fansite he made two Allsvenskan appearances for Malmo, one start and one 30-minute sub outing at Vastra Frolunda (attendance: 410). Ironically Malmo themselves were "fully professional" that season, but they were the first and only Swedish club to trial it. They soon reverted to part-time status like the rest of the league in 1994. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Split between "keep" and "merge". In either case, there is no consensus to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Harmon[edit]

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

This article is WP:FANCRUFT that belongs in the Queen's Gambit fandom wiki rather than wikipedia. Most of the content is specific to the TV series (the novel gets only a passing mention). The extensive "biography" is already well covered by the plot summary in the main article for The Queen's Gambit. The subject of the article is not independently notable from the novel and TV series and is best dealt with by these articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of sourcing for real-world commentary about the character. I see what the nom means about there being a bit too much detail here, but that can be solved through regular editing, and deletion is simply not warranted because the GNG is clearly met by the sourcing already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jclemens. I'm the editor who advocated Merge below. Since you are presently the main (only, in fact, if we discount banned users and sockpuppets) editor advocating Keep, could I ask you to elaborate a bit on "plenty of sourcing for real-world commentary about the character", specifically taking my misgivings in mind: "Sure, the name "Beth Harmon" is bandied about in several reliable publications, but in the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are either about the actress playing her or about real-world chess players compared to her." I would like to hear your arguments why a stand-alone article is better than a section in the main article, even though it appears likely it will remain a permastub only. I would find your feedback useful to guide my thinking on future AfDs. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JClemens is a regular at Afd discussions so his opinion will carry some weight. To be honest if this were closed tomorrow it would probably be a "no consensus" keep. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, MaxBrowne2. To CapnZapp's point, it is no great Wikipedia tragedy if this gets merged into the QG minieries article, because this character does not exist outside of that, nor would anyone seek to understand this character outside of Taylor's portrayal of her. Having said that, if the options are keep or not keep, the coverage is sufficient for a keep, and a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD. But having said that, commentary's on Taylor's portrayal of Harmon meet the GNG as independent, non-trivial mentions in RS of the article topic, and that is sufficient. Permastub vs. fleshed out article isn't a reason for deletion, as even a stub can give more full nuance to an article than a section in an article on a parent topic constrained by WP:LENGTH. WP:SS is illustrative of how this can, and I would submit should, be handled. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, if the options are keep or not keep, the coverage is sufficient for a keep, and a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD. But the options aren't limited to keep or not keep. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commentary's on Taylor's portrayal of Harmon meet the GNG as independent, non-trivial mentions in RS of the article topic If praise for the actor's portrayal of a character were relevant for an article on that character, yes. But I didn't think that to be the case. I would have thought an article on a fictional character would need sources that discuss that character, not its actor. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD this AfD is the result of the existence of the Beth Harmon article being discussed with no such consensus having emerged. Seems wasteful to first have this AfD decline taking action purely on technical grounds, only for its nominator to have to (hypothetically) go to a RfC. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Permastub vs. fleshed out article isn't a reason for deletion No, it is a reason to merge. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
even a stub can give more full nuance to an article than a section in an article on a parent topic constrained Sure, but we're not discussing the theoretical case, we're evaluating if this is the case here. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, not sure why I bother. If JClemens is determined to keep his keep (as it were), and Max' prognosis seems accurate, then we're just wasting time. If I were you Max I'd withdraw the AfD (as nom). Then I'd heavily prune the article down to only the bits that really merit inclusion (by my earlier quick peek there were two(2) articles actually discussing the character), and then, when it is an obvious permastub, move that little content and turn the article into a section header redirect (with anchor). CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my objection was not so much to the existence of the article itself, but to the obvious fan perspective it was written from. I removed the entire biographical narrative, which simply duplicated material in the main Queen's Gambit miniseries article. I suppose a brief narrative section could be written which avoids any contradictions between the novel and the miniseries, e.g. simply mention that she was an orphan, since the father was dead rather than simply absent in the novel, and the mother didn't die in a car crash. I also removed the section on critical acclaim for ATJ's performance, which is about the actress rather than the character (but the refs were good and could be used in the QG miniseries article). If the article is deleted the section on Beth Harmon's inspiration is best included in the article on the novel, otherwise the present article is its natural home. The article could also perhaps have a section on differences between the TV series and the novel. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should copy your thoughts to Beth Harmon's talk page and then close up this shop. CapnZapp (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to close it prematurely. I raised it to get community feedback on how best to proceed, and I will accept whatever result comes of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've already concluded this discussion isn't allowed to discuss anything more than "delete or not" (and that it will most likely result in "or not") instead of the far more useful discussion "should we merge and redirect, or are people coming up with enough material to sustain a stand-alone article". You'd think this would be a great place to have that discussion, but it really isn't if editors !vote against merge simply for procedural reasons. We need to have this exact same discussion AGAIN in a place where we can separate keeps that really are only !deletes from keeps that really are !merges. Asking people here to not !vote keep simply because there exists sources discussing Beth Harmon (since the real useful practical question isn't if there are ANY sources but ENOUGH sources) have been proven futile. Accepting whatever result only means you risk forestalling that discussion: I mean - this'll likely end in "no consensus". Don't misinterpret that as a consensus against merging. It only means we couldn't reach a consensus to delete. The real discussion is where editors claiming "significant coverage from reliable sources" are actually pressed on that, and asked "but is it enough for a stand-alone article?" There's a real possibility this AfD will hamper improvement of Wikipedia if editors asking that question in the near future will be accused of flogging a dead horse since the matter have already been discussed here. It has not. Here the discussion is artificially constrained, as amply explained by JClemens. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Haleth. Stop trying to dominate the discussion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A disappointing reply. Accusing someone of dominating discussion is trying to shut someone up without having to detail why. Anyway, see you at the inevitable talk or merge discussion after this initial sparring match is over. Hopefully I don't have to say "told you so" because somebody tries to shut down that discussion with the argument "it was just discussed over at AfD". Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So CapnZapp, I've been participating in AfD discussions, off and on, for about 15 years. Some of my perspective may seem a bit archaic, but yes, I do believe sources discussing an performer's portrayal of a fictional character count towards that fictional character's notability. And yes, while AfD has the choice to opt for non keep/delete outcomes, WP:PEREN notes that AfD is not now, nor has it ever been, "Articles for Discussion". As such, you'll find I almost never opt for a non-keep !vote if keep is an option--not because I don't think merge is a viable option, but because I only think merges should be enforced by administrator action and community process when and if it is demonstrated that a standalone article would be in violation of our policies and guidelines. In other words, if you can't get the editors on the respective article talk pages to agree to a merge, you need to provide a pretty compelling case that they're wrong to get me to support an enforced merge. Again, not the end of the world if it happens, but I'm not going to support it, based on my reading of the sources. At the same time, if this discussion is closed as 'no consensus' I'm certainly not going to go to the talk page and argue it must not be merged, either. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very narrow interpretation of what I assume you're referring to (i.e. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD). It seems bureaucratic in the extreme to me to have to nominate an article for each outcome separately if your point is "a standalone article doesn't serve Wikipedia's best interests" but where the specific outcome (delete/merge/redirect) is of lesser concern; potentially wasting everybody's time by having to have the same talk three times. In this case we will arrive at a result of no consensus despite there to me seems like a complete consensus from all three of us to merge the info and change the article into a redirect, simply thanks to you. I guess I'll part ways by reminding you of one fully compliant (and in this case very helpful) course of action you might consider in the future: that of not engaging. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp, I think that is an incredibly poor attitude on display when you are the one who initiates the series of bludgeoning comments after you pressed Jclemens to provide a reasoning for his stance, when he is not obliged to. You are entitled to your opinion, and so do the rest of the editors in this discussion. Haleth (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page have the enough information to keep it as an article. However I agree that it needs some changes to make it original and not very extensive as it is. Regular editing can solve that problem in the character biography, but the page doesn’t needs to be deleted. Alvrix3104 (talk) 3:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC) — Alvrix3104 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
  • In choosing between a faint Keep and borderline Delete, I'm going with Merge: Sure, the name "Beth Harmon" is bandied about in several reliable publications, but in the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are either about the actress playing her or about real-world chess players compared to her. Among the very few sources that are actually talking about the character Beth Harmon, I see one discussing her fashion style, and one discussing her love life. To me this suggests a much shorter section in the mother article (which btw definitely is The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) and not The Queen's Gambit (novel); I see nothing about the book character anywhere) is sufficient. Hence Merge. If this article is to be kept it needs to be massively pruned since it's currently 90% about other women than Harmon! CapnZapp (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that I found this in the notability guide for music (WP:NM): Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded which links to the WP:PERMA essay. What this say is basically: Before reaching a consensus to keep this Beth Harmon article, please ensure you're not just creating a a permastub. After all, there likely won't be more seasons of the show. In the end, the essay's In some cases they might be merged to larger articles and redirected there seems like words of wisdom. CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)≈[reply]
  • Keep This has proven to be able to have an independent article and Anya Taylor's Carácter, become kind of popular. However I agree that maybe the article is maybe too extensive so I agree that maybe it need to be edited to ensure is independent and not copy paste from another page. I checked and the page has been already edited, but just delete a few things and it will be ok.Alox3108 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)— Alox318 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Alox318 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Alvrix3104 (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Comment WP:SPAs and obvious sockpuppetry do nothing for the cause of keeping the article. Big no-no. I have opened a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvrix3104 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) as there is not enough significant coverage of the character itself to justify a separate article. P-K3 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the presence of significant coverage from reliable sources, and per reasoning by AfC reviewer on the talk page and from Jclemens. Whether there will be more episodes for the series is irrelevant when according to WP:NEXIST, we should consider whether there are further sources which have not yet been cited, if concerns are to whether this article will remain a WP:PERMASTUB. WP:NMUSIC is irrelevant to this discussion as the subject topic is not related to music in any way. Haleth (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) (which seems to be the primary article relating to the character) per WP:TWODABS, with a {{Redirect}} hatnote pointing to The Queen's Gambit (novel) for the discussion of the character as it appears in the novel. The character (or characters, depending how you look at it) has no significance or substantial coverage apart from the contexts of the miniseries and novel. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a subdiscussion semi-hidden above you might find interesting: #closeupshop CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content here isn't just in-universe stuff, but also talks about inspirations for the character (from a 1983! source) and casting/production history. Also, since the character exists in both the novel and the show, there isn't really a comfortable way to merge this. It's far more convenient for there to be this page, where the encyclopedic information on Beth is gathered, rather than having the reader chase it across multiple pages. The sources demonstrate sufficient notability. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnar Florholmen[edit]

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

Contested PROD: "doesn't qualify as uncontroversial due to 100 appearances for Rosenborg". Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the league was not 'fully professional' then. Professional football was illegal in Norway until 1991 and the players all had to have day jobs. The sourcing in the article is scant - we don't know the most basic biographical details about this person - and I don't detect much WP:GNG-level coverage at NB.no or elsewhere. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG (no significant coverage) and NFOOTBALL (Norwegian league was not "fully pro" until 1991 at the earliest, or 2001 as FPL currently stands - though I note this is again disputed/under discussion). If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it would be fair to presume that someone who has played so many times for Rosenborg would get a lot of coverage but this search doesn't seem to have anything other than trivial match report coverage Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emeniano Acain Somoza Jr[edit]

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

Unsourced, no clear pass on GNG Pipsally (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uses html. –Cupper52Discuss!12:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Facebook is never a reliable source. I am unconvinced that we should ever even have links to facebook. It is not even a very stable source, However when the only source on a biography of a living person is facebook that is a very clear indication we need to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are strong valid sources referenced in the article ie. internationally refereed academic journal, literary websites, magazines, newspapers, etc. Use of 'html' can be corrected by editors. But I agree that the external Facebook link can be deleted. [[User:Bigbyrd282000|17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOTRESUME. I have written several articles about Philippines culture, have visited the islands, and my Filipino-American domestic partner keeps me up to date with cultural affairs. The subject is not well-known. Just to be fair, I checked Google and found zero news articles and newspaper articles about this person. His works appear in a few anthologies, but there's nothing I can find about the writer. In 2007, we could have forgiven this, but in 2021, everybody knows we are not a web host for your resume. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Sussex Bus[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this defunct company in multiple reliable sources (that are not of limited interest or local) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Countryliner - Although both companies are unrelated to each other this article states "Services commenced at short notice on 9 October 2012 after Countryliner went into administration the day before." so it would sense to merge there seeing as it was only formed due to Countryliners adminstration. Unfortunately there's not significant coverage and nothing local either. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would rather have preserved the history as opposed to outright deletion however on paper merging doesn't make that much sense - made more sense in my head. Anyway unfortunately delete per nom. –Davey2010Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History Mapping[edit]

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

History mapping may be a real thing but in this context, it's pure original research by a youtuber without anything in the way of actual meaningful in depth, independent, reliable coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, the nominator is completely correct. The article is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH using zero valid reliable sources. It could just be returned to draft space so the OR issues can be resolved, but I have my doubts that this would be able to pass the WP:GNG regardless. I've done some searches, and I have found zero reliable sources that discuss the concept, at least not under the name of "History Mapping". Rorshacma (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of this AFD is the article in point, and not the subject. The article consists of original research and appears to be trying to publicize the work of certain amateurs. Wikipedia should not be used for disguised advertising of amateurs. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too much original research/WP:SYNTH. Plus, I'm not convinced that the subject hasn't existed in the forms of movies and videos prior to the age of YouTube, but not necessarily with this name. I'm remembering the Schoolhouse Rock social-studies/history/geography "episodes" where animated maps were integral to the video. These date from the 1970s. I'm sure they weren't the first to use the concept. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A page covering this same subject was deleted around 2 months ago, and the consensus was to delete and leave a redirect to an existing page. Unless it has suddenly exploded in popularity since then (spoiler alert: it hasn't) there is no justification for creating the same page again. TheRealDario04 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Mapping is inevitably a useful tool in historical geography and to illustrate history, but this is a set of how-to instructions for using certain software; non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Combined Youth Football League[edit]

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

This, unfortunately, looks like another non-notable league. It only gets trivial, local coverage and is often not the main subject of the article. For example, it is briefly mentioned in this Dereham Times piece and also in this one. It gets a mention in the Eastern Daily Press as some games were called off due to COVID and gets another insignificant mention in the North Norfolk News. I can't see any reasonable interpretation of WP:GNG giving this a pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey G Richardson[edit]

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

Entirely reliant on primary sources. Feels very non-notable, only WP:CCOS is his mayorality. Gaioa (T C L) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nomination withdrawn. The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Kashmiri Shias[edit]

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

The article consists of information that have been added per WP:ORIGINAL, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Nearly all of the references like ("Ta'rikh-e Hasan", vol. 1, "Taraaj-e Shia" is used for majority claims and "Shias of Kashmir: Socio-political dilemmas". IUVMPRESS returns Error 522) are unverifiable per WP:VERIFY and are not WP:RS. The factual accuracy of the contents is WP:DUBIOUS. — Amkgp 💬 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: "Withdrawn by nominator" - The creator has improved upon the sources and other issues can be sorted. I have also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Amkgp 💬 14:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your claim. This article is supported by secondary scholarship that is cited in reference list. You can read them and modify them if you think it needs improvement.

Check English source:

Zaheen, "Shi'ism in Kashmir, 1477–1885", International Research Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4(4), 74–80, April (2015).

Persian source:

Pir Ghulam Hasan Khuihami, "Ta'rikh-e Hasan", vol. 1, "Taraaj-e Shia", pp. 479-494, Research & Publ. Dpt., Jammu & Kashmir Gov., Srinagar (1960).

Other supporting English sources:

1. Prof. Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, "A Socio-Intellectual History of Isna Ashari Shi'is in India", Vol. 1, pp. 168–169, Mar'ifat Publishing House, Canberra (1986).

2. Christopher Snedden, "Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris", Oxford University Press, p. 29, (2015).

3. Ildikó Bellér-Hann (2007). Situating the Uyghurs between China and Central Asia. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 20-21. ISBN 978-0-7546-7041-4.

4. Bellér-Hann, Ildikó (2008). Community Matters in Xinjiang, 1880-1949: Towards a Historical Anthropology of the Uyghur. BRILL. p. 137.

5. British Gazetteer of the Kashmir, pp. 31 - 32, (1872-73).

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: International Research Journal of Social Sciences is a WP:PREDATORY source. Source (3) and (4) is a mere mention and is not closely related to the subject/article. Source "Ta'rikh-e Hasan", vol. 1, "Taraaj-e Shia" is a WP:ORIGINAL which is used as a references for around 3/4th of the contents in the article. See similar past commentary here — Amkgp 💬 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed Tarikh-e-Hasan from references, improved the text and added many more citations, please have a look.

6. J. N. Hollister, "The Shi'a of India", p. 148-149, Luzac and Co, London, (1953).

7. Jadunath Sarkar, "History of Aurangzib", vol. 5, pp. 323-325, Orient Longman Ltd, Delhi (1952).

8. Andreas Rieck, "The Shias of Pakistan", p. 3 & 16, Oxford University Press, (2016).

9. P. N. K. Bamzai, "Cultural and Political History of Kashmir", Vol. 2 & 3, M. D. Publications, New Delhi (1994).

10. Jadunath Sarkar, "Fall of the Mughal Empire", Vol. 1, p. 303, Orient Longman Ltd, Delhi (1964).

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough coverage for keeping the article. "The author of the Baharistan is more explicit about this tyranny and says that Mirza Haidar was over thrown because of his persecution of the Shias..."[25] Though I don't think the article can stand with the present title, we can discuss title change on the talk page. Santosh L (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Thank you Santosh L!. Initially the title was "Destruction of Kashmiri Shias" which is translation of the term "Taraaj-e-Shia" that is used for these events in history books. I think we should use it as it is more precise and it has a history. Some other editor changed it to the present title.
Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellripper[edit]

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are notability claims here (being signed to a reasonably notable record label and touring) that would be acceptable if the article were sourced properly, but there's nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have the correct type and quality and depth of sourcing -- but eight of the fourteen footnotes here are from blogs, another four are from their own self-published web presence on their own website, their Bandcamp and their record label, and another one is the self-published website of a festival they played at, which means that 13 of the 14 footnotes are not notability-supporting sources at all. Only one reference here (#5, Vice) is real coverage from a real media outlet, but a band has to have more than just one of those to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, the notability question is not "have they done stuff?" -- it's "have they been the subject of real media coverage in real media outlets about the stuff they've done?" Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current article sourcing is definitely inadequate, but they've been reviewed in several independent magazines, like [26] from Louder Sound, [27] from Kerrang!, and [28] from The Quietus. This 2017 story in The Guardian questions his notability ("marginally better known", "promoted largely via social media", "tiny pockets of audiences") but does mention his "laudatory reviews" and "global reach"; with the addition of the above sources from 2020 covering his latest album, I think it's sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. DanCherek (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm doing this Talk thing wrong, this is my first foray into this side of Wikipedia. Vice has several other articles mentioning Hellripper but I didn't want it to get dinged for using too many links to the same source. While not in the same realm as Vice, sites like Metal Sucks and Metal Underground are both relatively notable within the metal community. Is the deciding factor the mainstream coverage, or notability within the sphere that the subject exists in? I reviewed the Verifiability page, but I'm still unclear about that. Specifically: the self-published sources states that self-published material (eg: the Hellripper Bandcamp page, or the Peaceville Records page) can be used as long as several criteria are met, which in my eyes seems to be the case here. I've added additional citations including the Kerrang mention above, and one from a major radio station in Toronto for additional points in the notability column. When I've got more time I can figure out how to work in The Guardian article, I just don't want to cite 30 different reviews to the latest record as proof that the band is notable. Do self-published websites with reasonably large communities still fall under the general self-published no-go rules as well? Regarding the DIY festival's DIY published website, numerous notable underground music festivals self-publish, or only publish on social media. In these situations, what is the preferred method for citations? RobbieCrash (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notability demonstrated. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The previous voters have located viable sources. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, with a lot of fan trivia removed, but there is enough media coverage on this act to support a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Taylor (dream worker)[edit]

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

Very weakly referenced, and plenty of WP:peacock. Gaioa (T C L) 15:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 15:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 15:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's notable. There are more sources to cite such as this article by Ryan Rominger, Ph.D., PCLC, University of Phoenix, Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research. The man's work is notable in academia. All one needs is access to academic libraries and not be overly dependent on Google searches. Atsme 💬 📧 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Naseeruddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and presented here as self WP:PROMOTION that can be concluded from the creator username Mohammed Naseeruddin GHMC — Amkgp 💬 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 19:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Kamal[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson whose page had previously been deleted through an AfD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still remains a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable businessperson, fails in meeting wiki criteria for people. Setreis (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AFDs should be a last resort. It seems as if a hasty attempt to delete an article that requires some work. The nominator doesn't seem to have verified if the subject meets WP:GNG and did online research. He is a prominent businessman and art connoisseur. He runs an art gallery which is based in Dubai and is the chairman of Alturaash Group. He founded Asif Kamal Foundation in India that works with underprivileged children and their families in the area of education and healthcare. He launched several initiatives to help the needy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alturaash Art Fund is another initiative to promote artists globally and to provide loans against modern and contemporary art. He has been discussed in numerous mainstream newspapers. I recreated this page only because he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources since the last AFD, including [29][30][31] [32] and meets WP:GNG.SKSaqib (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. RationalPuff (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable businessman, passes GNG. However this is the 2nd nomination but from then I found few news references which are new, reliable and independent. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete relies entirely on paid-for news releases on unreliable sources. Salt to prevent SPAs from sneakily publishing the article again. M4DU7 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @M4DU7: Are you seriously claiming 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which are mainsteam newspapers and published by their editors to be paid articles? Where does it say they are paid sources? These articles were published at reputable presses with editorial oversight and have significant coverage to establish notability of the subject.SKSaqib (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am seriously claiming exactly that. The New Indian Express article just quotes him and provides next to no coverage on him. The other four sources are promotional PR trash on low-quality sites that have a proven history of publishing paid-for spam. Wikipedia's NBIO bar is far higher than this. M4DU7 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@M4DU7: This is just a shot in the dark. Please show me where its written those are paid articles. Do they have disclaimers at the bottom or paid content written anywhere. I think you knee jerk jumped to that conclusion. Just because you may have seen a few paid articles published at these websites doesn't mean you will put every article in the same category. All news publications do allow to publish paid content, even New York Times does, but they also let readers know by putting disclaimers, tagging under sponsored, partnered, brand post categories. None of the news articles i have cited are paid ones and they are reputable newspapers in India.SKSaqib (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sites post the PR disclaimer. It comes as no surprise that all these articles were published pretty much the same day and that there is zero coverage in any better source. May I ask you how you know Asif Kamal's date of birth? Seems suspicious when I consider the fact that you have made no real contribution outside this article. Shot in the dark? Yeah, right. M4DU7 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asking this question clearly shows that you didn't check references properly. I found his date of birth on The Statesment.-SKSaqib (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The what? I cannot find it in the article or here. Please link it before accusing me of not checking the references properly. M4DU7 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per sources provided by SKSaqib. Passes GNG however it needs some work.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current sources establish notability and found more sources online. Passes BASIC.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is nothing more than vanity spam sourced to paid for black hat SEO sites and covert press releases. CUPIDICAE💕 20:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to agree with M4DU7 that it's likely at least one of the sources are paid. That in turn brings greater suspicion of other sources. If you look at Angela Paljor, the New Indian Express article author for the source in the article, you will find her other articles contain gems like "Hair care offerings to tackle monsoon frizz", which is clearly an ad for Schwarzkopf Professional Keratin Smooth Perfect Range. The article descriobes the product and uses quotes from "Melissa Hughe, National Technical Head, Schwarzkopf Professional". It's an ad. Or, examine "Banking on home service and client loyalty", where the services of numerous hair salons in the Shahnaz Husain Group are described. Quotes in the article are from "Shahnaz Husain, Founder, Chairperson and Managing Director of The Shahnaz Husain Group".
One of the sources included in the first version of the article was "Asif Kamal has made name in the Indian Art Industry" from thestatesman-dot-com. It has the byline "SNS Web", which I believe equates to press release distribution. Anyway, I can't link it here because it is in the spam blacklist. And so on... Possibly (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to mention few important points here with not agreeing on Possibly's argument about his claim for the paid article based on assumptions, first of all, The New Indian Express is a pre Independence established and credible media house in India, having an in-depth article about someone doesn’t mean it’s a paid article and also we know that the paid and sponsor article are allowed in the media houses and they do the paid article with the disclaimer on it and it’s not a hidden story. Claiming about an editor who’s expert on writing about art and culture mostly that she is a paid editor based on a few articles which have an in-depth discussion about product or profile. I can see not all the references mentioned on the page is from the same agency, same editor, I can see references from 2014 onwards in different agency and a different storyline about this person and he is in the media from 2014 onwards regularly. For the sake of argument, If an editor has done a few paid articles also in her editorial journey doesn’t mean all of her articles are paid? Timberlack (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have significantly improved the page, adding a controversy section with more authoritative sources.-SKSaqib (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per added new references, passes WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added new resources and content, passes GNG. LucyLucy (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LucyLucy and Timberlack: which new sources would those be? CUPIDICAE💕 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ryckman[edit]

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

City manager of Corning (city), New York, population 11k. Most of the article is a close paraphrasing of [33], but wouldn't meet notability threshold even if rewritten. Local media coverage consists of quotes from him about various city projects. DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaders of cities with such a small population are not presumed to be notable and do not pass WP:NPOL. No coverage I have seen shows that this person should be an exception. I found a lot of passing mentions in local papers (as would be expected for any local politician). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. City manager is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL, especially not in a city with a population of just 11K — I live in a city with a population 244 times the size of Corning, and our city managers have never had Wikipedia articles — but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to deem Ryckman more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jānis Andžāns[edit]

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

One source is a blog/interview and the other source just mentions him as a member of a band. Searching turns up little else. Does not meet WP:GNG MB 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MB 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. MB 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:A7, because the article makes no claim of importance or notability, and merely announces the guy's existence. It's possibly an attempted promotion but a pretty poor one with no description of why he should be noticed by anyone. Even if Speedy Delete is rejected for procedural reasons, Delete anyway because he is only present in his own professional listings (LinkedIn, etc.) and his band's totally typical social media and streaming entries. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Spiderone. COI also applies, as the user only edited his article and other "Crow Mother"-related stuff. And his edit summaries are written in Latvian, which is very strange on an English-language encyclopedia and indicates a close relationship with the band, or perhaps he is one of its members.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivagiri Sree Narayana Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. There is not much references to prove the notability. Phoenix man (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A C Kadloor[edit]

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

Blatant resumé and autobio with extreme undue detail. Most sources are primary. Gaioa (T C L) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gaioa (T C L) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does he hold office? I'm not even sure if he was elected; the article needs a rewrite in order to prove notability and for better readability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He participated in the election to become a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly thrice, but he did not win a seat. Therefore, he does not pass WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem he has actually won any of the elections he contested, so fails WP:NPOL. Doesn't appear that he meets WP:GNG either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. The article appears to have been created via the efforts of a sockfarm as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and a WP:PROMOTIONAL stuff only. — Amkgp 💬 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indication of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. fails GNG. Timberlack (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL for never holding elected position - also is an obvious case of WP:PROMOTIONAL. Redoryxx (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has not held any role that confers an automatic pass of WP:NPOL, and the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make him more notable than the norm for unelected political candidates or school superintendents. As always, notability is a question of demonstrating the importance of his work, not just verifying the existence of it. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NPOL, not to mention is WP:AUTOBIO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prennenial political candidates, especially ones without clear indication of notability, are not notable, and should be deleted Totalstgamer (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Dimitrov (footballer, born 1992)[edit]

Georgi Dimitrov (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only just scrapes a pass of WP:NFOOTBALL with one recorded appearance at professional level. The one non-database source in the article is only a passing mention, see the translated version. During my WP:BEFORE search, I found one match report that provides a bit more than a trivial mention, a brief mention and another passing mention. This is not the significant coverage in multiple sources required to pass WP:GNG and there is strong consensus that footballers that only trivially pass NFOOTBALL should be required to meet GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - long-standing consensus is that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed. GiantSnowman 14:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (Harry) Charles Mellor[edit]

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

Government official, who's 15 minutes of fame surrounding a decision of his, garnered some brief mentions, but clearly not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girideepam Bethany School[edit]

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. There is not a single reference is there to prove the notability and existence. Eagle eyer333 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I hesitate to vote delete without having better access to other language sources. I was able to find a few passing mentions in english language sources, but nothing to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soham Majumdar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 12:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 12:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources and references have been added. At the very least, the article can be regarded as a stub, but this should not qualify for deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witney and District League[edit]

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

This league plays below level 11, which is the lowest point at which the English football league system is defined, so has no inherent notability as there is strong consensus that sub-county feeder leagues need to pass WP:GNG. Internet coverage is very weak and consists mainly of trivial mentions in the Oxford Mail where it is not even the subject of the article, for example here and here. Google Books has two hits here and here, which are both passing mentions. A search of British newspapers has a fair few hits but a close analysis of the first few pages shows that we really just have a column of the Witney Gazette that publishes the results with brief comments and, at best, the occasional small portion of a column in the Oxford Chronicle and scant coverage in other local papers.

I would say that this league is similar to the 20 or so deleted last year for the same concerns and doesn't warrant an article in a general encyclopaedia and would be more suited to a non-league fan site or similar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam[edit]

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. There is not much references to prove the notability. Eagle eyer333 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another school that has plenty of passing mentions in english language sources, and I'm sure if I could speak Hindi I'd be able to find plenty of coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia[edit]

2019–20 Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not needed, as does not pass WP:GNG. A season article for a local football competition where the overall article doesn't even exist. This was moved back to draftspace and then back to mainspace, so I object to draftifying it again, as there's no evidence it'll ever meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this essentially appears to be a regional qualifying tournament where the winner gets to play in an amateur cup for fifth and sixth tier teams. Maybe there are enough sources to scrape together an article for Coppa Italia Dilettanti Apulia but season by season results listings seem excessive given the low level and lack of coverage. If non-trivial analysis of these fixtures can be found then I'm happy to change my mind but, at the moment, this doesn't look like it's notable enough for inclusion. Delete per WP:GNG failure and WP:IINFO. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to understand why this page is deleted but there are also less notable pages that do not risk deletion? Dr Salvus (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which other articles are you referring to? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: I mean for example the article 2020–21 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 99.9% of this article is not notable. Yet this article is present and it also seems right to me, just as it seems right to keep this page, at least as a sandbox of the football project. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the main difference is that that one is the main national cup, albeit the preliminary rounds of it. I'm not sure that it's notable, though. Further discussion might be needed to establish consensus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other articles about less notable topics, that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so if its anything its an argument to delete that article too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian, Spiderone, CAPTAIN RAJU, and Joseph2302: If it was not an encyclopedia-worthy entry, in my opinion, these pages could be transferred to the sandboxes of the football project. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC) @RandomCanadian, Spiderone, CAPTAIN RAJU, and Joseph2302: could I have an answer? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by that you mean sending to the draftspace, that should be fine. The main issue, though, is that that would be on the basis that the topic is potentially notable so there would still need to be sufficient evidence that GNG could be demonstrated if more time were allowed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this, as I see no evidence that it'll ever be notable. And so at some point will just end up having to do this AfD is it goes back into article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why did you propose it for cancellation? Dr Salvus (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be a bit bold but there seems to be a rough consensus in the long discussion to improve on these articles. Certainly no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Connacht[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Connacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List articles like this are typically reserved only for matches between national teams, and even then only the tier 1 nations. – PeeJay 11:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a series:[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Munster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of rugby union matches between Munster and Connacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of rugby union matches between Munster and Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Realistically, there is a rivalry between between all of the sides in the ones that have been listed. They play each other regularly and there is significant coverage of the matches in the media, likely passing them for WP:GNG. However not sure whether lists of results are enough to pass WP:NRIVALRY. Previous lists like this were deleted because there was not a rivalry between the sides, and all that remain is where a rivalry occurs (such as matches between Six Nations teams or Tri Nations sides, or when something notable has occurred in one of the matches sparking a rivalry such as Japan and South Africa). Would like to see other voters comments before making a vote. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rugbyfan22: Perhaps a better article to have, then, would be Connacht Rugby–Leinster Rugby rivalry, similar to the Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry article title style used by WP:FOOTY? – PeeJay 13:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PeeJay:, I agree articles like this would be better, certainly at club/province level. You could certainly get a significant article on the Leinster/Munster rivalry, and there is probably enough coverage for articles on the other rivalries listed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we could get the interest in people actually writing proper articles rather than just slinging a few tables of statistics together, I think I could see this AfD being withdrawn. However, is there such an appetite, and are the articles in a good enough state to avoid deletion as things stand? – PeeJay 13:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know @MunsterFan2011: does good work on anything Munster related and has edited on other Irish rugby related things in the past, and @LeinsterLad: has edited a lot of Leinster stuff in the past, so perhaps they could be interested. @Mrgoggins90: and @CUA 27: have also edited Irish rugby related articles regularly in the past also. Could be a case that new articles are written with these articles being merged into them though. I personally don't have enough knowledge/interest on Irish rugby to write them though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! (while agreeing that modifying/improving is a good idea). Thanks, Rugbyfan22, for inviting me to the discussion. It looks like the discussion above evolved from "are these notable?" to "how do we improve these?", and the second question is exactly right. In evaluating whether the rivalries are notable, the first sentence of the Leinster/Munster article states (with citation): "Leinster versus Munster is, according to some Irish commentators, one of the biggest provincial rivalries in world rugby,[1] which dates back to 1879, the year of founding of the provincial sides." I think these articles pass WP:GNG with plenty of room to spare. In terms of improvement, I think we can expand the prose for these, add some references, keep the summary statistics; I don't feel strongly about whether to keep or remove lists of individual fixtures. Also, can't resist commenting on PeeJay's question "are the articles in a good enough state to avoid deletion as things stand?" ... I don't think that's the right question, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Instead, let's continue the discussion above about how best to improve them. I'd be willing to help put in some work to improve at least some of these. I'm guessing MunsterFan2011 would too, at least for the Munster ones. CUA 27 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CUA 27:, personally I like PeeJay's suggestion of moving the pages to Leinster Rugby-Munster Rugby rivarly as used in football and as used in the example of WP:NRIVALRY. I'm not sure keeping an exhaustive table of all matches is necessary, and I think it breaches WP:NOTSTATS. But by adding prose and by using some of the statistics listed in the articles (such as head-to-head record, top points scorers, attendances etc.) then you could get a good article out of it. I'm not sure there are any examples in club rugby to use as examples (likely because a lot of pro teams have had shorter existences due to professionalism etc), but the football ones could certainly be used to show what sort of things could go in the pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with restructuring these articles to provide some more context around the provincial rivalry and why it's important, it would certainly make these articles better. I don't the statistics are in violation of WP:NOTSTATS — the statistics here are neither excessive nor unexplained. They also provide important historical context, showing how the rivalries evolved and power shifted over time. Happy to help reshape these articles into a more suitable format. McKennaP (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm just not sure a result by result summary in its current form is required. Some of the football related rivalry pages do list full history of results, but the tables have been simplified, such as in South Coast derby (rivalry between Southampton and Portsmouth, and even that page needs some more sourcing). Splitting them into tables for competition specific matches (a table for Pro12/14 etc, European competition, Irish cup and interprovincial championship) could be a way of improving that though. Thanks for offering your help though @McKennaP:. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure matches between each of the provinces have their own historical significance as rivalries, but the Leinster–Connacht list is sorely lacking in context right now. It seems to purely exist as a list of matches and a small summary thereof. Is there any reason why the list of matches starts in 1946 and then has a little break in 1996? If the notability of the Connacht–Leinster rivalry could be substantiated, I'm sure that article would survive deletion. The other lists are slightly more substantial, as they actually put the rivalries into context, but all of them could do with more. At the moment, I'm unconvinced that these lists are anything more than a statistical archive. – PeeJay 13:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a rough consensus here that these articles could and should be improved — by focusing on the rivalries, adding prose, and adding reliable sources. I have already started making some improvements at History of rugby union matches between Leinster and Munster. See what you think, and whether this starts to move things in the right direction. If so, I (and others) can keep working away on improving these. If folks had a different view of what should be included/improved, I would welcome your thoughts. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm still unsure about the Connacht–Leinster one. Is that a real rivalry? I mean, I guess when there are only four provincial teams, you're bound to have significant rivalries between each of them, but I don't see that in the article. – PeeJay 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a reasonable start with the added prose and sources, still think the large table of results is ugly and could be tidied into something more presentable and easy to read. In terms of the Connacht/Leinster rivalry, there is sourcing our there such as this, this, and this, the modern rivalry seemed to stem from a couple of losses early on in the Millenium, with Leinster losing an unbeaten run to a last minute drop goal. If this prose can be added then it should be fine, it certainly not as fierce as the Leinster/Munster rivalry but with it being All-Irish and occurring 2/3 times a year I think there's a rivalry there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Thanks @Rugbyfan22: for your invite to this discussion, and to @CUA 27: too for your note. I'd like to echo CUA 27's comment of "Keep! (while agreeing that modifying/improving is a good idea)". I'd be happy to contribute in improving the quality of these articles. I agree that an exhaustive list of fixtures is perhaps not the best format to be used, and that it could instead be broken down perhaps into a list of key fixtures. To use Munster–Leinster as an example, the article could focus on fixtures such as the two famous Heineken Cup semi-finals in 2006 and 2009, which are probably the most notable for each provinces supporters, but also the Celtic League finals and possibly also the league semi-finals.
To provide context, one could argue that these rivalries pre-date the professional era, owing to the inter-provincial championship that was run by the IRFU from 1946 until 2001 and still exists informally. When the Pro12 was reorganised into the Pro14, home-and-away fixtures between the four Irish teams were specifically retained in order to maintain those rivalries, as is also the case with the four Welsh regions and the two Scottish teams and their 1872 cup. Whilst most Munster fans will point to Leinster as their fiercest rival, there are some Leinster fans who consider Ulster to be their main rival. Historically, Leinster and Ulster have contributed the majority of the players selected for international duty with Ireland, which in itself has contributed to the rivalry between the provinces, as Munster and Connacht have often felt their players were overlooked due to 'elitism' in Dublin and Belfast.
Economics and demographics also play a part in the rivalries. Dublin, being the capital and largest city, and by extension Leinster as the province the capital is in, has substantially more people, businesses, resources and investment that the other provinces, particularly Munster and Connacht. Dublin alone has over 20 private schools, many of which are able to prepare young players in an almost professional-like setup for the step-up to pro rugby, whereas there are only 9 private schools in the entire province of Munster and even less in Connacht. This in itself has contributed to the rivalries, as there are some fans who feel that Leinster and Ulster gain an advantage, some would argue unfair, by simply having the good fortune of having more economic muscle.
It's no secret that Ireland's economy has struggled ever since the collapse of the Celtic tiger. Many young people faced little choice but to leave their homes and move to the capital to work. They settle there, start their own families there, and whilst they may remain Munster fans or Connacht fans, their children naturally often become Leinster fans, it is after their home province and often the team their peers support. If you're an immigrant looking to settle in Ireland, you are most likely to settle in Dublin. If you're a foreign investor looking to grow your business in Ireland, are you going to invest in Dublin or, say, Limerick or Galway? Chances are you're going to invest in Dublin and open your business there, it's where most of the people are and where most of the money is.
These things are of course not unique to Ireland and Irish sport, but they are the contributing factors to rivalries on the pitch and beyond - there is an identical debate that has been taking place in Ireland for a number of years now about the resources afforded to Dublin GAA which we could connect with a dotted line to this discussion. I feel if we can draw out these factors and improve the articles with this information, then there is a strong case for keeping the articles, albeit I recognise that the specific articles may be merged with new articles, or even deleted once a stronger replacement articles is in place. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments @MunsterFan2011:, there's a lot of good information there, certainly stuff I didn't know or didn't appreciate when it comes to the rivalry. If a lot of that can be sourced and added to the articles then that would be great. I'm guessing at least one historian has written a book on the Irish rugby rivalries or history of Irish rugby that covers the rivalry between the sides and covers the points you've made above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the Keep opinions are by SPA's and fail to cite how this meets GNG.  JGHowes  talk 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Kumaramangalam Public School[edit]

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. It is to be noted that the school was set up only in 2003. And the person being referred to in the History section visited the town 100 years ago. Daiyusha (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing comments by sockpuppets; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is about a school. There are so many Articles are there about schools. Then why you nominated this article for deletion? Phoenix man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:Don't you read the article? The person being referred to in the History section is Sree Narayana Guru. He first built a Temple there. And asks the natives to construct a school also there. What is the problem that you find here ? It is true that the school was constructed in 2003. And I added supporting references too there.Phoenix man (talk)
Please read WP:NORG. Even schools are required to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are there reliable and independent sources reporting significantly on this school? If so, please share them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.keralatourism.org/kumarakom/sree-kumaramangalam-school-kumarakom.php

  • Keep:Go check out this article, which was published by Kerala Tourism. It clearly states that the statement is 100 percent true.Phoenix man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide independent sources showing in-depth coverage and analysis of this school? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article about Sree Kumaramangalam Public School in Fit India website by Government of India:-

https://fitindia.gov.in/events/fit-india-cycle-day-323/






That's just the run-of-the-mill database entries that every school in every country has. Where is the significant news coverage of the school? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle eyer333 (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC) sock strike Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article being correct or not is not the issue. Please provide in-depth sources showing notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix man (talk)

A school having a website does not make it notable. Please read WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all of these several keep votes are from sockpuppets, none of whom have presented even one source that goes any way towards the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a school is not notable simply because it exists and it clearly says on NORG that schools are required to meet the notability criteria for organisations as with any other organisation. The sources presented in this discussion, and the ones that I stumbled upon in a search, are all, without exception, bare minimum database entries and none of them confer notability. The claim above by IP that this school is "very famous" is not supported by any sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school clearly fails the notability guidelines for schools. I was thinking maybe there would at least be the sourcing out there about Kumaramangalam Subramanyaswamy Temple where it's located to justify an article for it that this could be redirected to, but I couldn't find anything that would warrant an article notability wise for the temple either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:HEY as it is a weak keep, but for gazetteer subjects like schools, that should be enough. IMO, there's been way too much deletion of gazetteer subjects over the last year. It does bear note that the range of available sources doesn't end at the same place Google does. That applies even more in parts of the world where data digitalization hasn't got as far as it has in others and contributes to systemic bias on Wikipedia. 27.61.41.218 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at List of schools in India#Kerala and clicking on some random schools to see how many references are enough to be kept. It turns out, the requirements are pretty low. For example, take a look at Brook International School, Sasthamcotta and Infant Jesus School, Kollam. Considering this, I think the sources you have provided might be enough. 27.61.41.218 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a secondary school. Schools aren't inherently notable, though. 106.200.42.170 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Schools aren't inherently notable, correct. What suggests that this one is? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That source contains no significant coverage, nor is it independent of the subject, so it has zero value in this discussion. If this school is as famous as you keep saying, then there should be better sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maskedman Sree: So are schools everywhere. But some schools don't deserve an article just because they "exist". They should have done something notable, or be popular enough in their state to have multiple news articles. Daiyusha (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a criteria. Having an accreditation(CBSE or any state-level education board) is the minimum legal requirement to set up a school in India. CBSE is the country-wide uniform education system, tens of thousands of schools follow it. And it will only keep increasing yearly. Daiyusha (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cucking stool. Sandstein 19:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunking[edit]

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

There's nothing in this article that isn't covered far better in the Cucking stool article - there's nothing even worth merging. Pipsally (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Brothers Karamazov#Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov. Some disagreement on whether the character should have a separate article or not, but reading the debate here leaves a rough consensus that if there is to be a separate article, it would need to be more firmly sourced to secondary sourcing of character analysis. I am leaving the history of the article in place so that it can be accessed if more material needs to be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel_Fyodorovich_Smerdyakov[edit]

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

Article meets multiple criteria for deletion, including:

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. This is because the article is a collection of individual opinions/interpretations of a fictional character rather than an encyclopedia style entry.
8. Article fails to meet WP:N. This is because it is an article about a fictional character who appears in a novel with its own entry, namely "The Brothers Karamazov." A heading with an encyclopedia style description of the character already exists in the article for the full novel.
14. Content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Article is composed almost entirely of original thought (personal essay) along with soapbox statements (advocacy and opinion materials). Article contains primarily information about subjects with no clear relationship to the subject of the article. Lager guy99 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Lager guy99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the character is important to the novel "Brothers Karamazov" and like all Dostoevsky characters has received critical attention. As noted, however, the character already receives a heading in The_Brothers_Karamazov#Major_characters there is sufficient encyclopedia style information on the page for the novel itself, and there is not sufficient substantive encyclopedia style information to be added to this in order to justify a separate page for this character. Most of the main characters for this novel do not have a separate page even while being of more significance to the book and receiving equal or greater scholarly attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lager guy99 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The odds are the character is notable, through what my quick BEFORE found was only plot summary. But the current article is a WP:ESSAY/WP:OR mess that seems in need of a WP:TNT. I am willing to reconsider my vote if sources are found showing notability (reception, analysis, etc.) but it might be easier to retire this and restart the article from scratch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is not policy; it's an WP:ESSAY and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Our actual policies are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which make it very clear that weak starts on a topic are acceptable and that we prefer to improve what we have rather than deleting it. The idea is that starting again from nothing is sensible is absurd. Any writer knows that a blank piece of paper is quite intimidating and Wikipedia puts numerous bureaucratic obstacles in the way of fresh creation too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andrew in principle to be sure, and would be much happier to find a way to improve rather than delete--that is always the better road as we all agree. I suggested this for full deletion, however, because in looking at the page I could not identify any content whatsoever that could reasonably be preserved. Virtually none of the current content deals with the character in question, and instead discusses what appear to be some pet theories on the part of the author regarding Dostoevsky, Russian history, and a table of names that has no clear purpose. I was also concerned about the fact that in the talk page for this article the primary author explicitly states that they have written this article in a non-ecyclopedia style and cannot be standardized for political reasons (author states: "If the article is standardized, it will look like a modern winning American politician, mostly from the Democratic Party.") While I once again completely agree with Andrew that a weak start should not be deleted just for that fact, my viewpoint is that in this situation leaving the article as it is and hoping for future edits amounts to protecting the work of someone who has consciously leveraged the Wikipedia platform to disseminate non-ecyclopedia commentary. I do not believe that policies such as WP:IMPERFECT are meant to allow users to post whatever personal and unrelated ideas they wish into a given page on the grounds that the ostensible topic of that page is notable, and thereafter have their personal and mostly unrelated essay persist on the system indefinitely on the grounds that the supposed (but not actual) topic could theoretically be worth an entry. This does not seem to be at all in the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. In short this is not in fact a weak start that could and should be improved, it is a deliberate misuse of the system that should not be protected. And once again, of major importance, the character does already receive an appropriate description within Wikipedia. Lager guy99 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, Actually, you are very wrong about what's easier. New editors are scared not by lack of a page, but by the existence of lengthy low quality content they may have to rewrite or remove; many are worried that they cannot delete it due to it not being theirs. And experienced editors who may want to DYK it are put off by the fact that they have to do 5x expansion and are saddled with all that trash that may need deleting anyway but still counts towards the 5x requirement. See [35] and the point about 'Running out of easy topics'. And common-sense shows that people created a lot of articles in the early days of the project, when they were blank. We are not growing faster than in these days but slower. You know, this graph and others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Piotrus. Delete in the sense that there are no reliable third party sources to make this notable. But weak in the sense that we are uncertain about whether sources can be found, and someone could recreate or rescue this if they indeed find them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not an issue of notability but needs a complete overhaul and rewrite. Both The French and Russian versions of this article appears to be properly written as an encyclopedic article, at least through the filter of machine translation, and is cited with multiple secondary sources. It would be preferable if these versions could be transcribed into English to replace the low quality content of this article. Haleth (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the French version looks good and if transferred over that would be an excellent resolution. Forgive me for the noob question, but if no one steps forward in the course of this discussion to do that (my French is solid but my time is not up to the task) then is there a way to do the delete and redirect that you suggest, and then also tag it as an article needing translation? Lager guy99 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional as per Davidstewartharvey. Someone should transfer the French article. If not I could see the merit of blowing it up and linking to the french article at Wikipedia:Requested articles so that we get someone who has french language experience to help when they see it. Archrogue (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe it!

Dostoevsky has no second plan. This is an authentic story from an original Russian settlement to an average Russian family at the time, and generally addicted to alcohol! The Bolshoi Theater is not visible at all from behind.

Delete immediately! At will. 87.120.218.226 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Act like Facebook and Twitter with Donald Trump

Magistra vitae. To make Alexander the Great even greater, it is necessary to delete the article about Darius III. In this spirit of logic, Russia does not exist in modern times. What does the literary image of the murderer/creator of Russia mean in this case? Nothing! 87.120.218.226 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Awaaz Suno[edit]

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

Non-notable future film with no evidence of the film entering production, all sources are sharing basically the same article, so per WP:SYNDICATED this topic does not have independent coverage, and none of the articles actually state the film has entered production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-02 move to → Draft:Meri Awaaz Suno
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep, GNG assumed to be met as the sources presented have not been challenged. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo[edit]

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

Deleted twice, most recently in May 2019, recreated five months later. The latest author, MSteinburg, makes much of new source Save on Send (more at Talk:Remittance#Remittance providers (MTOs)). But it's the blog of a corporate website. It has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking. No books or journalistic sources cite it. It has none of the characteristics of a reliable source.

I agree with the prior nomination that the BBC piece is the best source. Beyond that, there are barely 100 words in The Gaurdian, an advertorial video WP:INTERVIEW produced by Reuters and posted on The Washington Post website, and half a dozen press-release-based announcements of capital raising of the sort explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. My own WP:BEFORE convinces me this fails WP:NCORP. See also WP:CORPSPAM. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That was your historic conclusion. Does it still hold, given the current references and sources? gidonb (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NORG. Specifically WP:ORGCRIT. gidonb (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources do you feel are simultaneously: significant, independent, reliable, and secondary? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the references count toward ORGCRIT. But let me focus on where we agree: the single one that you discuss at length is not good! gidonb (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic concerns the company and not the App. For that reason, articles which only contain reviews of the App but fail to provide in-depth information on the company fail the criteria for establishing notability of the company (WP:CORPDEPTH). But there are at least two references that appear to meet the criteria. This TechRadar reference provides information both on the company and on the software and meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this review from finder.com also provides in-depth information on the company that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing++ 12:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to Draft:Crayon Shin-chan: Shrouded in Mystery! The Flowers of Tenkazu Academy, pending coverage of the actual release of the film. BD2412 T 23:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Shin-chan: Shrouded in Mystery! The Flowers of Tenkazu Academy[edit]

Crayon Shin-chan: Shrouded in Mystery! The Flowers of Tenkazu Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no independent coverage provided, does not appear to meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify? until released. -Cupper52Discuss! 10:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It doesn’t have coverage currently, but when it releases it will likely receive more coverage. Link20XX (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is third party sourcing on the Japanese Wikipedia. Though if it is not enough, Draftify until film release would also work. Jumpytoo Talk 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to move some of those sources to this article. But as of now, we only have an (unconfirmed) cast list and a unsourced plot summary and a release date. I think that most of that which is actually sourced could be merged to a different Crayon Shin-chan article, and keep this in a draft until the film has shown to have both enough notability for a stand-alone article and enough content to split from a longer article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York[edit]

Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company. Fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can find more about the building than the company, but I'm not sure either is notable. No NRHP listing for the building, the company is old but just seems to be chugging along. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the building is a contributing member of the Court Street Historic District (Binghamton, New York), which affords the building the same distinction of significance (and the associated benefits) as an individual listing. NHRP supporting documentation Vmanjr (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Baker, William (December 1974). A History of the Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1985–1971 (Thesis). University of Nebraska. pp. 1–267. ProQuest 302800101. Retrieved 2021-02-14.

      This is a 267-page thesis that covers the company's history in substantial detail.. The document notes: "A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College in the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department  of Economics Under the Supervision of Professor Charles J.  Kennedy"

    2. Poltenson, Norman (2014-01-03). "Security Mutual Life is accelerating growth". Central New York Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.

      The article notes:

      On Nov. 13, 1886, Charles M. Turner founded the Security Mutual Life Association with eight local businessmen. Unlike a stock company, a mutual insurance institution is owned by the insured persons who become company members and are entitled to indemnification in the event of loss. On Jan. 3 of the following year,  Security Mutual opened for business at 86 Court St. in downtown Binghamton.

      The first customer was Charles E. Tichener, the founder of Tichener Iron Works in Binghamton. Tichener bought a one-year, renewable-term policy naming his wife as the beneficiary, which in the event of his death paid the widow $1,000. Security Mutual pocketed $38.06 in premiums on its first day of business. Within six months, the company had collected nearly $5,000 in premiums with $650,000 of insurance in force. By the end of that year, revenue hit the $15,000 mark with more than $1 million of life insurance in force.

    3. "Insurance. The Rates Charged by the New Binghamton Co-operative and Their Consequences". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 39, no. 2036. 1887-12-08. p. 24. ProQuest 90387796. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.

      The article was published in 1887 so is in the public domain. The article notes:

      In The Independent of last week we gave an analysis of the contract of an association calling itself "The Security Mutual Life Association of Binghamton, N.Y.," showing conclusively that no real insurance was granted by the contract. We now propose to show how utterly absurd it would be even to give insurance under the rates charged. ... Business men must necessarily think twice before such trash as this is substituted for genuine Life Insurance.

    4. Legrande, J. C.; Culberson, H. L.; Cary, H. E. (1899-12-07). "Strong Life Insurance Combination: The Bankers Guarantee Fund Life Association of Atlanta and the Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of Binghamton, New York Unite Interests and Forces". The Atlanta Constitution. ProQuest 495552363. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.
    5. "Security Mutual Life Celebrating Golden Jubilee". The Jewish Advocate. 1937-03-12. ProQuest 870897508. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.
    6. "Insurance: Is This Life Insurance?". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 39, no. 2035. 1887-12-01. ProQuest 90409381. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.

      The article was published in 1887 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "One of the recent organizations which is being pressed as something new and wonderful is the "Security Mutual Life Association of Binghamton, N. Y." It is dressed up with new clothes, but it is a co-operative, and nothing else. It does not appear in the reports of the New York Insurance Department, because it is not old enough. But it has circulars, making all sorts of claims, and a large piece of bond paper printed on both sides, which it calls a policy.

    7. "Insurance: Open to Questions". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 50, no. 2604. 1898-10-27. ProQuest 90515959. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest]].

      The article was published in 1898 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "The Security Mutual Life Association, of Binghamton, is an assessment society which has changed its name from "association" to "company," under the very peculiar general act of last March, and has now an office in this city, under charge of M. D. Moss, whose former contract with the Mutual Reserve is cited as in part leading to the present internal dissensions in that society."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the new sources above, should be kept as it is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks a lot, Cunard! I was on the fence before, but I believe that there is enough notability for the company to justify the article. Vmanjr (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed Aviation[edit]

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

Mostly pr sources, fails WP:SIGCOV Setreis (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this company does indeed fail WP:NCORP despite the questionable nature of this nomination. No concrete coverage found. MER-C 15:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks coverage from multiple, independent sources which is clearly required in order to pass WP:NCORP Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 17:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks[edit]

Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly formed list which partly duplicates 6 separate incompletely developed lists of probably notable items of 5 towns/cities and of Sonoma County govt, then adds additional notable and non-notable items without adequate support. It would be most helpful to remove this in spirit of wp:TNT, to focus development on the 6 separate lists. To accomplish what I believe to be the article creator's main goal, then a merger could be considered, but would be formatted differently and would contain only agreed-to-be-list-item-notable items. If merger of all were to happen into one or two list-articles (historic landmarks in all of Sonoma County, or separated into two geographical parts), that would more easily be accomplished by appending the tables of the 6 separate list-articles, than by editing here. As has been discussed at article creator's Talk page, the preferred format would be like List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles, which efficiently uses colors and codes to indicate levels, and does not waste entire columns of mostly empty space.

Or, simply consider it this way: "Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks" is not a notable topic. A private organization has compiled a list (which happens to include contents of several Wikipedia lists of historic sites in Sonoma County, and also includes plainly non-historic sites, and is of dubious merit). There exists no coverage about it at all, not in any local news source, and not in reliable sources. I do wish to support the article creator's overall goals, but this has got to go. Doncram (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i.e. support retention. List articles which are consolidations of other lists by smaller geographic regions are very valuable to Wikipedia users. --MikeVdP (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles takes landmarks from various programs and consolidates them geographically. This makes it easy for historians and visitors to find all the historical landmarks in the area. This list does not remove National Historic Landmarks, sites on the National Register or California Historical Landmarks from those separate lists, but duplicates the entries and makes them available to Wikipedia users.
The National Historic Landmarks, sites on the National Register or California Historical Landmarks all have their own hierarchies which should not be broken.
There has been much talk about the five cities' programs. I believe these are all now adequately documented. Most of the individual cities' programs articles have been on Wikipedia for extended periods without any concerns about notability or reliability.
The Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts article has been in place since March 2018.
The Sonoma County Historical Society (SCHS) began its work on its consolidated list in early 2019. (See the draft article on the Society.) The SCHS was organized in 1962 and has been the leading county-wide historical society since then. The judgment of the Society's Board of Directors determined what was included on the list.
Of special concern to Wikipedia editors is the inclusion of all cemeteries. In the view of the Board, even newer, small cemeteries truly have historical value: the interments may be recent, but the occupants often have roots many decades or a century-plus back.
If the determination of the SCHS Board with its Sonoma County Historical Society List of Historical Landmarks is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, then perhaps we should not have a Sonoma County Historical Society List of Historical Landmarks, but instead have a Sonoma County List of Historical Landmarks which is a consolidation of the two federal programs, the state program, the county program and the five cities' programs. That reduced list would, appropriately, omit the cemeteries which are not specifically identified as landmarks in any of the nine established programs.
The Sonoma County List of Historical Landmarks (without any recognition to the SCHS list) would seem parallel to the Los Angeles lists which do not have any ties to any society or outside group: they are consolidated lists developed by Wikipedia editors. In that thinking, the title might be Historical-Cultural Landmarks in Sonoma County. That does, though open the list to additions of many churches, synagogues, Italian cultural centers, Filipino community centers and such.
Thoughts?MikeVdP (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An officer of the society (MikeVdP – COI-declared) posted a link to a list as a reference. The list has over 500 items. Moreover, the list referenced Wikipedia, indicating it was created to support the article and not an actual effort to designate historical landmarks. The source used Find a Grave as a reference to prepare the list. But the Find a Grave website includes "cemeteries" with unknown locations, no documentation, and no historic value. (For example, cemetery is a church memorial with no notable or even historical persons.) The List fails both WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:NOTABLE. Pointing to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles is a WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WHATABOUT argument. Focus should be on improving the existing list articles which will have value to the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I and others are willing to help develop those, as long valid sources can be found. And it seems that User:MikeVdP has recently been uploading photos which can be added to those, which is great. If/when those are developed, then a merger could be considered to achieve most of what the article creator intends (one-stop shopping about all notable Sonoma County historic sites). It would remain to be argued whether non-notable, non-historic sites should be included. Although some of these may be moved to Draftspace for further development (and note there is a lack of sources or at least dispute about sources at the Healdsburg one, at least, at AFD now, nominated for deletion or move to Draftspace by me), I do expect those will eventually be valid list-articles.
But I am not willing myself to fight it out about sources, etc. at all 6 of those PLUS at this duplicative Sonoma County-wide "mega-list" article. If this Sonoma County-wide article were developed, instead, then all 6 of those should be deleted (MikeVdP, do you realize that, do you agree?). However I think there are 512(?) items in question, and it would probably make too long of a list-article to merge all together. And, the AFD subject mega-list is inferior, does not even link to many existing articles about individual notable sites. For purposes of arguing about valid sources, etc., it will be far more efficient to argue about Windsor sources in the separate article about Windsor, etc. And to argue about the sites supposedly located in Windsor which are not in fact located in Windsor. IMO the town/city of Windsor is not likely to provide building code and zoning-type protection to historic sites not located within its borders, so I do not believe it is proper to state (as is done in AFD subject article) that non-Windsor sites are Windsor sites. Do let's discuss at the Windsor Talk page, not at this mega-list.
Also, the article creator and members of the SCHS are free to publish in the Sonoma Historian (see [36]), a journal of the SCHS which may well be a valid source that could be cited in Wikipedia. Also, the article creator is free to create a map of all 512(?) historic and non-historic sites that SCHS has "listed" and publish that at the SCHS website. But Wikipedia mainspace is not the place for local Sonomamanians to blog or otherwise make assertions about what is historic based only upon their own opinions or upon resolution of the SCHS.
To User:MikeVdP, this AFD process is a cumbersome one, which will require a week or two of time, and I predict will reach a decision to delete this or move it to Draft space. But AFD is also a bit random. If it turns out this article is "Kept" or "No consensus to delete" is the decision, then I expect I will feel it necessary to dispute and delete all contents of this list-article. And to argue at its Talk page that discussion about Windsor sites needs to be settled at the Windsor article, first, before duplicated here, etc. I really really would prefer to simply get rid of this, so that you and I and others could proceed efficiently to develop about all 6 areas, elsewhere. It is not necessary at all, or it is premature at least, to have this duplicative list-article open.
To others, again, the "SCHS list of landmarks" is not a Wikipedia-notable topic, is not covered in any published sources, not even the SCHS's own Sonoma Historian, as far as I know. I ask for "Delete" decision towards move forward with other development. --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deal with a couple of items we might be able to close first:
1. The individual cities' programs. Talk on those can and should be on those pages. On those talk pages, please note what improvements are needed. These are all official programs which are (I believe) documented.
2. No, when a comprehensive list (mega-list) is created, the contributing pages DO NOT go away. For the Los Angeles mega-list example, the entries (records) remain in the National Historic Landmarks, the National Register and the California Historical Landmarks list articles. These NHL, NR and CHL programs all have their own hierarchies in Wikipedia which should not be broken. This Sonoma County comprehensive list article mirrors the Los Angeles geographic list articles which, indeed, duplicates entries, but provides a geographic organization in addition to the separate by-program hierarchies.
3. For cemeteries, should not cemeteries which have been "lost" not remain? Many NHL, NR, CHL and local landmarks have "general site of" or "site location confidential" designations. The fact that the specific site is not know does not eliminate its importance. The primary references for cemeteries are, indeed, Find-A-Grave and the Nichols book. I'll add this comment to the cemeteries talk, too.
--MikeVdP (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MikeVdP, this is helpful interaction. About 1, sure, discuss at those Talk pages, although those articles (and Talk pages) might get moved to Draftspace, if they are not adequately supported to stay in mainspace. Having been around for several years does not give a free pass, but the governmental historic landmark programs do seem fundamentally notable to me.
About 2, "No" back to you about your understanding of how the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments lists work, and how all other local-level historic sites lists work. There do exist list-articles covering wider regions' higher level designations, e.g. List of World Heritage Sites in North America, List of National Historic Landmarks in California, National Register of Historic Places listings in Sonoma County, California, and California Historical Landmarks in Sonoma County, California. Nothing here should change any of them. But note that each of those can/should list the appearances of any higher level designations in the lower level. E.g. the list of 68 NRHPs in Sonoma County makes a point to note the 4 NHLs in the county. If there were any World Heritage Sites in the county, those should be mentioned also (but there are not). It can/should be clearly presented which of the higher-level sites are also given the lower-level designation; this may require having a separate table listing the higher level sites within the local region which don't have the lower-level designation. But surely anyone interested in NRHPs in Sonoma County would also want to know about higher level designations in the county. That's what the list of LAHCMs in downtown Los Angeles does: it restates all the higher level designations, too. That's what a list-article about Healdsburg, or about Windsor, or about county-designated sites in unincorporated areas should do. But, there is no duplication of the lowest level entries. We do not have, anywhere in Wikipedia as far as i know, duplicative sets of "all lowest level and higher historic sites in region A", "all lowest level and higher historic sites in region B" as well as "all lowest level and higher historic sites in combination of regions A and B". If summary treatment about all of these could be handled well enough in the A+B one, then we would eliminate the separate A and B ones. It would not particularly serve readers to have, and historic sites editors are not willing to maintain, grossly duplicative list-articles. P.S. I will grant to you that the list of California-state level CHLs in Sonoma County may not currently report on the higher level designations in the county. It should be modified to do so.
About 3, cemeteries are not automatically list-item-notable, though the intros and Talk pages of list-articles about them seem not to make that clear. Follow up at Talk:List of cemeteries in California#many cemeteries are not list-item-notable, to be deleted.
To be clear, I want this "mega-list" deleted.--Doncram (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it would appear many of the landmarks themselves may meet notability and this is more of a directory page for it. Why not keep it? Webmaster862 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to see that this AFD is about removing a big duplicative list (as would be created by a merge, but without removing the components merged), plus removing not-validly sourced info about non-historic random other items.
Here is where AFD gets random? I have seen this happen before, about list-articles, where a few editors show up with sort-of-reasonable-sounding points about notability of items, which is different than their considering the reasonableness of having this particular collection of them. Yes, there are notable items of several types and locations, many having individual articles or getting them soon. But all of them (well except for some arguably non-historic, not-notable ones that are to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely) are covered in other lists of those types and locations. It is an _editing matter_, not an issue of "notability of some items", that historic sites editors don't want to have entirely overlapping lists. It is okay to repeat mention of a few high-level historic sites in a list of the lowest-level historic sites for a given small local area. That's not what's going on here, this is unfortunately intended to exist as a merge of 6 separate lists, while keeping all the 6 separate lists in existence also.
And, Webmaster862, this list-article also is a host to non-historic, non-notable stuff. Again, there exists no external coverage of the mixed list of places compiled by a non-itself-wikipedia-notable local historical society. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This seems to be about every significant building in a county. This may be appropriate for the Society's own website, but it is far too wide-ranging for an encyclopedia, such as WP. Not every NRHP site is important enough to merit a WP article, and certainly not all this locally listed stuff. An article about the Society's list (with a link to an external website might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is synthesis, combining the preexisting National Register of Historic Places listings in Sonoma County, California and California Historical Landmarks in Sonoma County, California with local sites. These lists should not be duplicated like this. Just because some of the landmarks themselves are notable does not justify this combination. At the very least this should be limited to county-only landmarks, but these are the least notable ones. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Update: Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California has been closed "Delete", on basis that it did not provide sufficient documentation establishing which, if any, places in or near Healdsburg, within Sonoma County, have been designated local landmarks by the city/town of Healdsburg. And even if that minimum was provided (about which I grant that I saw User:MikeVdP making progress at its Talk page, by their adding citations to specific off-line city/town council resolutions), there still is no information available, much less good sourcing, about why on earth any of those have any historic merit. So it it really not ready for mainspace, IMO.
Update 2: The deleted article was restarted at Draft:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts and there is discussion ongoing at Draft talk:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts. --Doncram (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But these [Healdsburg items] are all apparently "listed" by the Sonoma County Historical Society in their mixed list of actual historic plus non-historic whatevers. It is an editorial matter to fight it out once, not again here in this duplicative list, about the merit of the Healdsburg places. The fact that places are "listed" by SCHS provides no support, unfortunately, about the merit of their being covered in Wikipedia.
To potential closer, I think this is ready to close "Delete". I'm sorry it is sorta complicated, that you have to see that some places in this list are notable places (in which case they are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia or could/should be) yet you have to see this list, this collection, is not helpful. I actually have a great record at wp:AFDSTATS in terms of my !votes in general, but a poor record on articles that I have myself nominated for deletion. This is because I am only ever bringing up semi-complicated situations where an editorial collective decision needs to be made.
The alternative to getting a clear "Delete" decision here would be for me and others to battle it out in this list-article, certainly towards deleting all non-notable places. And recognizing that the SCHS's "judgment" applied in its listing choices is poor, and can't really speak to list-item-notability of many of the places. It would be just weird to be keeping a list-article on places listed by SCHS but not accepting their judgment on what is to be listed (because there is no evidence of quality in their judgment, no standard being applied, with their accepting any burial in the county being the most obvious non-starter). So I suppose the editing battle could be to change/rename/repurpose the article towards being something else. But I don't see what that could be, duplicating other Sonoma County historic sites list-articles for no clear purpose? So realistically the alternative if this is "Kept" by "Keep" decision or "No consensus" decision is to appeal the decision, and/or to start a second AFD. Or just to act wp:BOLD and delete the article by redirecting it, and potentially having further fights about that because the BOLD action would be ignoring "consensus" in the AFD. This list-article just doesn't work. Sorry.
I nonetheless remain available, and have been doing some work, about expanding Wikipedia coverage of legitimate historic sites in Sonoma County (esp. Windsor historical landmarks), and I would cooperate in future about any grand merger proposal being considered, once smaller-area lists are better. --Doncram (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is an example of WP:SYNTH. We do have list articles, but these are usually well known lists. We do not feature lists curated by local societies/media as these lists are usually not notable. The individual items in the list may well be notable and individual articles can be created about them. Alternatively it might be possible to add them to suitable existing articles. If possible, I would suggest to Userfy the article, so that the content remains accessible.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ready to close: In my opinion this is ready to be closed with "Delete" decision. As has been noted, many items within the list are listed in 7 or 8 continuing mainspace list-articles plus Draft:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts, some of them having problems themselves, but it is better to fight it out in those separate list-articles about what are the facts. I think this list in fact was created by appending sections or all of each of those. That creation, in effect a merger without removing the contributing articles, had faults in how it was done. A potential future merger could be done better, and could use better content at the separate articles after improvements elsewhere are done. Even though I might personally oppose it, I remain willing, in the future after such fighting out about basic facts is done, to facilitate a merger proposal to re-combine in some way (or perhaps create a new streamlined "coordinates plus little more" version, or whatever), towards creating what I think the original author of this article wanted (basically a "comprehensive" list of historic places in Sonoma County, in one article so that linked "map of all coordinates" would display all). If, as the article title suggests, they really wanted this list in order to communicate to the world what the Sonoma County Historical Society chooses to identify as historic or possibly historic or whatever is their standard, then I would oppose that, because they should do that in their own website.
I am not sure if value was added in form of coordinates or identification of photos here. I don't know if coordinates here were sourced from the separate lists or were added independently here and not at those, and I am not sure if photos were added here but not at those corresponding other places, but I have saved a copy to maintain my access to those coordinates and photo filenames. I also previously thought this included a long list of cemeteries and other items which are not obviously list-item-notable under what I would think is a reasonable standard for list-item-notability, but now I see those were already removed (including many removed in this edit by User:Srich32977. The article creator and the SCHS presumably have all those coordinates and photo filenames, and they or anyone else could obtain a copy of this article and have access to them in the edit history, and I have copies of bigger and smaller versions of this.
In summary, this list should be deleted because it does not add value for Wikipedia readers, and any continuing process within Wikipedia to add value (e.g. developing more specific information about Sonoma County historic sites) is best done separately at the separate list-articles that were copied into here. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the references here do not appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Some coord were determined using GoogleEarth Street View to find the locations. No other source -- on Wikipedia or anywhere -- provides the mapping of Sonoma County Historical Landmarks the way this does. This provides phenomenal value to Wikipedia users, to historians, visitors and the public at large. Separate articles and separate maps are totally ineffective.MikeVdP (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take for example the separate Windsor historical landmarks list. I have been willing there to challenge MikeVdP to come up with sources (which he mostly has) towards clarifying/correcting factual assertions there. And I have corrected coordinates for 4 places (which remain misstated in the AFD subject list), based, yes, upon my going in with Google satellite view and street view. And I have added 17 coordinates for individual trees of a Windsor landmark that was omitted from both of the lists. There is no way in hell that I or any other historic sites editors would be willing to duplicatively edit in the AFD subject list, to correct its errors and omissions and false assertions (explicit or implicit) about historic places. I do see that the AFD subject list shows two places in Windsor not included in the separate Windsor list, which maybe should be, if facts and reliable sources can be identified. There's a discussion item, Talk:Windsor historical landmarks#Places not listed officially as Windsor landmarks, open, to which MikeVdP has not responded. I am not willing to duplicate such discussion and editing in the AFD subject list. But, I do not think that work proceeding on the separate, smaller articles is "totally ineffective"; it is making progress. Inconsistent editing across duplicative lists is to be avoided, first by removing the duplication. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC) 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
focus of efforts
Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia "experts" to fix the damage they have done to Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts rather than pile on an honest effort here? Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts has 192 entries according to the County of Sonoma. Yet, Wikipedia "experts" have decided that numbers 178 to 192 don't deserve listing. Let's make Wikipedia better, not WORSE!MikeVdP (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think i am going to start to get offended. I think MikeVdP is speaking of me, and it is hard for me to see how he could merely be misunderstanding what's going on there. If you are speaking about me or not, please do show diffs to whichever editors are behaving badly as you suggest is happening.
This reminds me of possible misunderstandings, or stretches of the truth, which I have asked MikeVdP about at Draft talk:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts. --Doncram (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A big interactive map showing all Sonoma County places collected from six separate history-related list-articles is available here. Through the wikimedia software magic of transclusion. Without duplication of the raw data in the six separate list-articles. Something like this can probably be done in mainspace, if presented properly (the collection has to be a valid one for presentation in mainspace). In userspace, one can do this for any unofficial collection of mainspace lists plus any other draftspace or userpace lists (e.g. a private historical society's list of other places it deems interesting). :) --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'The creation of the big interactive map will solve lots of these problems, particularly if it links back to the various programs' articles. 

So, we'd have the big interactive map, a disambiguation page for Sonoma County Landmarks Programs which would list the invidivual programs and the individual programs articles.  The number of columns or entries in the big interactive map could be quite limited.MikeVdP (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annova Systems[edit]

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

The company seems not notable, and I couldn't find anything about it that proves notability. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A WP:BEFORE should have detected the Openmedia product is the key element here which may be notable and which certainly has a WP:RS source in the article already.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that the company is not automatically notable because software it produced might be. I don't even think the software would pass WP:GNG. The article seems conflicted in the prose as to whether it's a historic or current company (either way, I agree it isn't notable enough). Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyJS[edit]

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

Most of the sources available on this software are associated (press releases, churnalism) or unreliable (blog posts). This article tries to make a case for notability by quoting download statistics and github forks, neither of which are relevant for our purposes. It also makes a large deal out of a pair of academic works - one a book, one conference proceedings. Each gets a paragraph in the history section of the article. But neither of these have substantial content about SurveyJS - they are trivial mentions. I've done some looking and haven't found better sourcing. I don't believe this meets either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Thank you for the constructive feedback and the opportunity to have this discussion. Please allow me to explain what inspired me to write the article and why I believe the subject is notable:
Survey software is a niche field. It is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. There are several related articles on the subject, including one which compares the software tools from the field. The comparison table lists 15 software packages (as of January 2021). Only one of those is an open source project - LimeSurvey. Of the commercial ones, there are six whose articles cite only PR sources with regards to their notability: CreateSurvey, Sogosurvey, Formsite, Formstack, Satmetrix, Survio.
The open-source one, LimeSurvey, establishes notability mainly by citing download stats from its source code repository on SourceForge.
The Reliability and Significance of Sources section of WP:NSOFTWARE states the following: “- The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.“ With that in mind I am surprised by the dismissal of most of the sources offered for SurveyJS, especially GitHub stats and academic publications.
Many FOSS articles rely on stats to establish popularity. For example, Magit is a niche software tool, which cites only blog posts and GitHub stats. Magit does not appear in any news articles or books.
I believe that the references for SurveyJS show that the product is notable in the context of the survey software niche. Wikipedia currently offers articles about this niche, but does not represent the open source landscape objectively. The popularity of SurveyJS is comparable to that of LimeSurvey, yet only LimeSurvey gets mentioned. Thus I believe the quality of Wikipedia's materials on the topic of survey software tools will get improved by the inclusion of the SurveyJS article.
Orilux (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up:
The auto-generated scholar link in the find sources section of this page produces 67 results of academic papers from universities in different countries and in different languages. One of those papers, from a joint project between the British museum in London and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute explains in detail the unique characteristics of SurveyJS, which led to them choosing it for the project over other platforms: Improving Visitor Evaluation at the British Museum.
Orilux (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an undergrad paper written by some WPI students. The Google scholar search turns up some trivial mentions, a few more undergrad term papers and the like, and some OCR errors (a few sources about geological surveys misidentifying 'survey is' as 'surveyjs.' We need both substantial content and reliability in the same sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, you raise two issues - reliability and significance. It was me who raised the issue of reliability first, by quoting the guidlines for FOSS in WP:NSOFTWARE, which state that it is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources, such as blog posts. This is consistent with other FOSS articles. Can you please comment on that?
The scholar search results, be them undergrad papers or master theses, are consistent with each other: they all refer to this software library as the researcher's tool of choice for performing their experiemnts. Several of the papers discuss the software selection process and highlight the same unique characteristics that influenced the choice (MIT license, offline capabilities, JSON compatibility, etc.). Those papers span over a period of 3 years and come from universities in the USA, UK, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Ghana, Russia and more. This level of popularity, combined with the repository stats, news articles and blog posts, more than satisfy the guidelines, especially in this niche category. Orilux (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orilux, Per WP:RS, blog posts are not useful. This is an open source program, but it is produced by a commercial entity who seeks to make money off of the paid variant. If other FOSS articles are inappropriately sourced that may be a reason to fix or delete those articles, not to add more badly sourced stuff. Undergrad papers, too, are not useful sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MrOllie, there is no "paid variant" of this software library. The project was initiated by a commercial entity, but that has no relevance to it being open-source. It is an absolute fact that this project is open-source. WP:NSOFTWARE does not specify any exceptions for OSS so your suggestion that these guidlines are somehow not applicable here is unacceptable. The commercial entity is not the subject of the article. I am in no way affiliated with this company or any of the authors of the library. I am not even a contributor to the project. I found the name of the original author by examining the source code repository's history. I have experience in this field and I already explained what motivated me to create the article. I did include the "Related software" section, because I believe it to be relevant in the same way that WordPress talks about Automattic and Wordpress.com. I have no objections to removing this section if you believe that will improve the article. I never said that other FOSS articles are inappropriately sourced. I only gave examples of some FOSS articles that use informal sources. What I did say was inapropriately sourced, was a bunch of commercial products on the Comparison of survey software page. Orilux (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Largely a puff piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. A BSc project is not a reliable published source that can contribute to establishing notability. Just because something is popular or "notable in the context of the survey software niche" does not mean it passes the notability requirements for an encyclopedia article.----Pontificalibus 13:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Democratic Party of Virginia. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:NORG. While editors have noted the existence of reliable sources mentioning the VAYD teen caucus, there is a sense that the depth of coverage is not sufficient to pass the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG. Usable content may be merged to the article for the Democratic Party of Virginia. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 13:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus[edit]

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

Tp meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG organisations need coverage in two or more reliable and indecent sources. This article is based on three sources by the Democratic Party. A google search brings up more partisan sources but I have not yet found anything independent in a serious publication. Since a clubs aren't inherently notable (particularly not those with 400 members), the article should be deleted or redirected to Democratic Party of Virginia. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author has added lots of sources in an attempt to WP:REFBOMB. While I can see that the majority is from the subject's website, I'm unable to open some because they're for some reason unavailable in the UK. From those that I could open, none has changed my assessment of the article. I trust that some of those who'll !vote in this discussion will be able to open those sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added include four references to news articles, as is required by WP:NORG/WP:GNG. If there is an issue with WP:REFBOMB, those specific sources can be removed from the article, but there is absolutely no reason to delete the article in its entirety. Super Virginian (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Super Virginian[reply]
The point of this AfD is not the refbombing or the number of newspaper sources: what we need is significant coverage (i.e. sustained and focussed) in a reliable (i.e. of high quality) publication unaffiliated with the subject. I can't tell whether this is met because, as I have said above, I'm unable to open some of the new sources. But I can give you an example of what the kinds of problems are that people here will look at: there is this one article in the Roanoke times (I can't access it) with the title 'House passes DEl. Rasoul's youth civic engagement bill'. Now, questions here might be whether this is actually an in-depth article about the subject to whether they're just mentioned briefly. So, it's about the quality and depth of the sources, not their number. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are four references to news articles, not just one. One is titled "Young Democrats to host advocacy training for local high-schoolers," published in InsideNOVA, a respected Virginia news site. Another is titled, "Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus advises teens on how to get involved." The last is titled, "Virginia Young Democrats announce High School Leadership Academy." The coverage in these three articles are exclusively about this organization and display that in their headlines. Super Virginian — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not continue this discussion: it's futile because I can't access these articles. It's up to the other !voters to decide whether these sources constitute the quality of coverage you say they do. Please note that I've indented our comment as to comply with the usual formatting of these discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Teen Caucus is an actual caucus with around 400 members. They are on the VA Young Dems website and every executive board member has an @vayd.org email. Furthermore, deleting this article would essentially be erasing the Teen Caucus's Wikipedia presence on the basis and personal beliefs of one person. Also just to let you know that there is a Georgia Teen Republicans Wikipedia page wherein their first paragraph they mention not being sponsored by the GAGOP anymore. Perhaps there is a focus on the wrong Wikipedia page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffrieChambers (talk • contribs)
    • Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:NORG, we don't keep articles just because board members have official emails – no one is suggesting this is not an actual caucus, just that Wikipedia articles are not based on whether they exist. You're telling me this caucus doesn't even have their own website, so why should it get its own Wikipedia article? Each of the 14 caucuses is mentioned on the VAYD website, so why should this caucus in particular have an article? It need to pass WP:NORG guidelines. Again, Virginia Young Democrats may be a notable topic, where the teen caucus may be acknowledged. And thanks for the heads up, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Teen Republicans – this is about Wikipedia policy that topics need significant coverage in independent sources, not personal beliefs. Reywas92Talk 06:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has been covered by the Washington Post.[1] If that's not notable I don't know what is. Super Virginian (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the Washington post article: yes, this constitutes reliable and independent coverage. However, note that several such sources need to cover the subject in depth per WP:GNG. I also think that, following established practice, it might be a viable option to add information about this caucus to a potential page about the Virginia Young Democrats as a whole, as suggested by Reywas92. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the organization has also been covered by InsideNOVA, Agusta Free Press, DemRulz, the Roanoke Times, and the McLean Highlander. That's 6. Super Virginian (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This organization has also been covered by Pehal News, an Indian news organzation. It has received international coverage. Super Virginian (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't given a link, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But there is an article on that news site (here's the link) talking about the incident mentioned by the Washington Post. It's clearly syndicated and even gives the Post article as its source. Per WP:SYNDICATED, such sources are not to be considered independent of each other. Reywas92 has explained why these other sources do not count towards notability. Pleas stop prefacing your new comments with 'keep'. Each editor may only !vote once in these discussions, so you could either add your new comments under existing ones or preface them with 'comment'. (I've changed it for you in this one.) Modussiccandi (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Reywas92. This organization has apparently been around since 1932, but I could find very little in GBooks. NCORP Fail. Possibly (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lovers' Legends: The Gay Greek Myths. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Calimach[edit]

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

An independent scholar with a self-published book. Mr. Calimach doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, but Lovers' Legends: The Gay Greek Myths meets the lower bar of WP:NBOOK (two or more reviews); so I propose a redirect.

There is a short entry for Mr. Calimach in the Enciclopedia Identitatii Romanesti. It looks like citogenesis from Wikipedia. (It also misstates his year of birth and surname). I don't know that he's all that closely associated with Romania; according to him, he was born in Budapest to a Hungarian father and Romanian mother, immigrated to the United States as a child, spent most of his adult life in New York or Vermont, and as of 2009 resided in the Canary Islands. "Andrew Calimach" is his nom de plume, not his legal name. gnu57 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu57 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. gnu57 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. gnu57 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. gnu57 08:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Castkro[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced promo blurb on a non-notable 'casting platform', fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT / WP:COMPANY.

Note, one of the sources (Slant) seems to be a blank page, another (Product Hunt) is either written by the same people or else the article is copypasted as the content is identical, and the only actual source (Medium) barely mentions the platform and in any case is not RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate emergency declarations in the United Kingdom[edit]

Climate emergency declarations in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm proposing deletion of this article because: I don't think this topic is notable enough for its own article, and for WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTEVERYTHING reasons. It's focussed on declarations at the subnational/regional level, which - based on the sourcing in the article (mostly primary sources/local news reports about local councils) - doesn't appear to be notable. Also, I don't think a long list of local councils which have declared climate emergency declarations is encyclopaedic - [t]o provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Although the following concerns aren't reasons for deletion by themselves, I think they're important to note: there seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the article, it's incomplete and is unlikely to be completed anytime soon - and even if it were complete, it would likely be overly detailed and long. I appreciate a lot of work has gone into this, so would like to hear what other editors who have contributed to this page think. Seagull123 Φ 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article clearly fails INDISCRIMINATE and SYNTH. I've proposed some changes to the article to bring it more in line with these policies, but beyond that I don't believe the article is significant enough for its own article to be justified per WP:NOTESAL and WP:SLC; there is little to no sources discussing the specifics of each region's declaration and the importance of it, and as stated above almost an entirety of the article's sources are primary sources. The article is overly long and the inclusion of every single city council regardless of relevance definitely falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I personally believe it as well as its sister article Climate emergency declarations in Australia should be merged into Climate emergency declaration: Recent development: list of countries and dependencies as notes beside each country's entry, perhaps along the line of "Several sub-national divisions have made declarations" for the United Kingdom, as a phrase along this line is already added to Australia's and the United States' entries. Builder018 (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge the notion that this is not a topic of significance. The bulk of the climate emergency declaration movement has been targeted at local governments. The geographic spread of this in particular countries is of particular interest to people interested in the geographic influence of the movement. Just like the same sex marriage page tracks legislative change by jurisdiction so should the climate page. I have seen Wikipedia approve pages for minor character lists in anime movies, I am quite sure that tracking a legislative change/political movement is in the worlds interest. It has taken some time for me to complete the UK page as I work fulltime I have been adding to it when I have time. The Australia page is very thoroughly researched and complete and should not be scheduled for deletion. I will note here that Australia was infact the first country where a declaration was made and this declaration was at local government level, this is where the movement has had the most impact and concentration. This has been the case thoroughout the world. I urge admins to hesitate to delete these pages given the global significance of the emergency declaration movement. Greenie2020 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greenie2020, notability on Wikipedia requires that an subject is covered by independent, reliable sources, per WP:NRV and WP:V; "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Whether or not you believe a subject is notable or "of particular interest" does not make it a topic that is verifiable and notable. The two articles are almost exclusively dependent on Primary Sources, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia and may be grounds for deletion of an article if not fixed. In addition, articles which are not finished should be drafted in the sandbox and published at once, instead of gradually updated; Wikipedia generally tries to avoid leaving half-completed articles published, even if there is a clear plan to finish them. To avoid deletion, at the very least the article needs to be completed, needs reliable citations to show notability and support any analysis, needs to be trimmed to be more readable and not fall in conflict with the INDISCRIMINATE policy linked above, and needs to be trimmed of original research and primary sources. I'd be willing to help with any of these, but the article in its current state is easily within reason to be removed. Builder018 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Builder018 The sheer amount of articles surely means that the subject is notable. Some of the articles referenced are national newspapers. The climate emergency in Darebin was reported globally. I agree with the sandbox comment. But it is a notable topic, I have not heard a justification as to why climate emergency declarations at a local level are not notable. I need assistance with both of them as I simply do not have enough free time to complete the UK article. The Australia one has all its sources it just needs more body text. Greenie2020 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: User talk:Builder018, User talk:Javiermes. Reason: Participated in earlier discussion on article talk page about the state of the article. Seagull123 Φ 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current checklist format seems to violate WP:SOAP. The issues seems similar to the fashion for declaring nuclear-free zones. The coverage for that at Nuclear-free_zone#United_Kingdom seems adequate for an encyclopedia and something similar is what's wanted, not this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly widely covered as a subject in the local press -- I don't see a criteria or policy for deletion being argued for here, Sadads (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is not based on the current state of the article (and the delete rationales are based on this), but whether or not the topic is notable. This list obviously needs work, but the topic itself is notable and sources do exist about this subject. Further, when the article is developed properly it will meet WP:CLN for many of the decrees which may either have articles or sections in articles. There is an notable article here, and AfD is not for cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TimothyBlue. Also, if Climate emergency declarations in Australia is good enough for Wikipedia, then so is this (UK) sister article. The important matter of Climate change has in the last two years (mainly due to the megafires in Brazil, Australia, California, etc.) evolved into an even more urgent discussion about a "climate crisis" or "climate emergency". The UK is a major player in the fight against climate change, and many countries follow its lead. I think this article, the Aussie one, and future ones like it, can be of use to the WP:READER in better understanding the international response to the current and more pressing state of our global climate. Cordially, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although pedantically I think the word "emergency" should not be used for a timescale of years, and I agree with the comment above that more context should be added, the subject is notable because it will remain in the news with climate activists contrasting these declarations with council pension fund investments, purchase of fossil fuel vehicles etc. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandranilekkoru Vazhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE other than Reference #3, which is a The Hindu article. I tried to PROD it, but the PROD was removed saying that that article is enough to satisfy GNG criteria for significant coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as The Hindu piece is indepth and significant coverage in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punya Elizabeth[edit]

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

She has starred in three films but the only film where she got to play a major role would probably be in Gauthamante Radham. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi there, I created this article and I thought it will meet the criteria, But whatever it is i will accept the decision of Wikipedia. I only want to contribute best things for Wikipedia. But she appeared in 3 movies, so could anyone help to improve the article, if possible ? Otherwise, it is okay ! Much Love Onmyway22 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even so please don't Delete the Article if she hasn't Participated in Multiply Movies Yet it means she's just a starter it doesn't do any bad if we give a chance until we get more updates about her. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Author Hi there, I failed to find the supporting reference for Punya. And I understand the article is not meeting the criteria that is mentioned by the nominator. I want to keep the Wikipedia right. You may delete it. I am agreeing with the deletion. Thank you. Love you Wikipedia :) Onmyway22 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence in article or searches that this person passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syra Madad[edit]

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

Midlevel "Emerging Leader in Biosecurity Fellow " with similar "emerging" awards and positions. Quoted a number of times in interviews about the NYC Covid operations; everyone available has been quoted by the NYC media, but not everyone involved in this is notable, though of course the work of all of them is important, especially to those of us living in NYC. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Definitely doesn't meet PROF C1 with her h-index of 2 and 20 citations. She's interviewed in several major news outlets, but it doesn't seem like any of them give more than cursory attention to her biographical background. JoelleJay (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - JoelleJay why would we look at NPROF she doesn't appear to be a Proffesor. She looks like a Public Health Executive for NYC government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "emerging" awards sceem loud and clear "this person is not yet notable".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Reading the sources provided in the article alone, Madad clearly meets the standards set forth by the WP:GNG. She's given not just passing mention but actual substantial, sustained coverage in multiple national and even worldwide news outlets. From the sources we have in the article alone, this very obviously isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Moreover, there are many more articles giving Madad substantial coverage and/or coferring notability than just in our Wikipedia article. For example, a cursory search turned up this interview published yesterday by The Toronto Star (Canada's highest-circulation newspaper), this op-ed on ABC News by Madad less than a month ago, this interview from Al Jazeera three days ago covering Madad's opinions and biography, this seminar co-delivered by Madad at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center two weeks ago, this article from Business Insider three days ago co-authored by Madad, and I could ago on. I want to emphasize that I've always been extremely skeptical about BLP notability (as my history on AfD will show), but that there's just no way this subject falls short of the GNG. I'll add here as well that the 'Career' section of the article would be well-served by subheaders. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just passing by to point out that a search in Urdu didn't produce anything of value. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC, due to the multiple independent sources that include Madad as an expert; "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Similarly, per WP:PROF, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," and that appears to be the case here, including due to her appearances in the Netflix documentary series Pandemic, the coverage of the documentary series, and non-local news that includes Madad as an expert, e.g. CNBC, Good Morning America, Fox News, CNN, Business Insider, People. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an update, with additions of sources I've made to the article, there are now references to two appearances on CNN, one on FoxNews, two on Good Morning America, one on MSNBC, and two on CNBC. Also added is a review of the documentary from the The Los Angeles Times that discusses Madad's role, and articles from the Toronto Star, Washington Post, and CNBC that quote Madad as an expert, and an ABC News analysis piece authored by Madad. The frequency of these appearances as an expert seems to further support notability per WP:PROF and WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MensXP.com[edit]

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

Cannot find reliable, extensive second party coverage. Google news shows nothing [41], beyond placed advertisements on news articles. Likely a non-notable per WP:NCORP. Sources currently cited are press releases from the Times group, and a piece from the Economic Times covering the acquisition. The claim about the number of webhits per day is completely uncited, and I cannot find any secondary source to support the assertion.

In making this, I applied from NCORP this analysis on the sources I found, and on the sources in the article itself:

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Economic Times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Coverage about the acquisition by the Times group
MensXP.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Self-description
Press release from the Times group Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Press releases are not considered reliable secondary sources
Outlook India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A passing reference to the site does not make it inherently notable
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content does not appear to be useful to any reader and article looks unlikely to be expanded any time soon Slywriter (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Vote by article creator) Notable for the following reasons:

1. MensXP has been mentioned or used as a source 144 times by Wikipedia English.

2. It has its own award the "MensXp icon of newHood".

3. MensXP has been title co-sponsor of Provogue MensXP Mr India World 2014.

4. Various milestones and activities related to MensXP have been considered notable enough to have been written about in independent, secondary, reliable sources. A few are shared here:

4.1. Prince Khanna joins MensXP.com as Director, Business Development & Sales

4.2. MensXP launches India’s first online men’s lifestyle shopping festival featuring over 250 brand

4.3. Forging New India: Angad Bhatia ‘MensXP is an authentic and familiar yet connectable millennial voice for the nation’

4.4. MensXP celebrates first anniversary of digital cover with Saif Ali Khan

4.5. MUMBAI: India’s largest online men's lifestyle brand, MensXP has entered the men's grooming products sector with its clean premium men’s beauty brand, ‘MensXP Mud’.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Times Internet#Subsidiaries and products Site is a naked churnalism portal. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided above. And also coverage provided by this book. Santosh L (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the source evalatuion above is completely accurate; the article is missing three significant independent reliable secondary sources. The reasons for notability listed above are not compliant with WP:NCORP and are blatant trivial coverage. —FORMALDUDE(talk) 05:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here passes WP:NCORP. The sources presented above are mostly routine announcements, not the kind of in-depth coverage of the business that meets NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halot-un-Nobi[edit]

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

This article focuses on a book written by Sadeq Ali - a stub article which I created. It doesn't really add much from the article about the Author (which is a stub) and can be merged instead of having an entire article of its own, especially as little information is known in the first place. It also has some factual errors in addition to a poor writing style such as unnecessary overcapitalisation. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of literature-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 8. UserNumber (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there may have any error, you can correct them. This is the main theme of wikipedia. Rather you are trying to delete wikipedia article illogically again and again. You did before with the Mystic songs of Sylhet. Even you tried to merge the Handesh and Sandesh in the same article though the two things are totally different. You should follow Wikipedia's norms and be sincere to other users.

Kazi Nazrul Islam famous for Bidrohi poem that is collected a poem from Agnibeena book. Both the book and poem have distinct article on Wikipedia. Rabindranath Tagore writes gitanjali. They are also written in distinct article. So, why don't you think Sadek Ali and his greatest work Halot-un-Nobi should be distinct.এম আবু সাঈদ (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The thing is that it meets the criteria for WP:MERGE, the quality of the article is not good enough to have an entire article of its own, especially with Sadeq Ali itself being a very short article. Please do not resort to ad hominems such as questioning my sincerity, especially when it seems you yourself only love creating your own articles instead of helping to improve others. The information provided in the Halot-un-Nobi article is already found in the Sadeq Ali article. UserNumber (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Seems to fail GNG/NBOOK. But maybe there is coverage in non-Latin alphabet? Although a quick glance failed to even identify which modern culture is primarily associated with this topic (the article is pretty messy and badly written, although not an obvious WP:TNT case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the absence of even the indication of where sources might be found, that keep argument holds very little water. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Koso[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Had no head coach positions in fully-pro leagues according to sources (only assistant and youth coach jobs). BlameRuiner (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that he was a football coach of a popular club and that there is still some coverage of him would indicate that he is a person of some significance. Anonymousme (talk) 04:23, 01 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymousme - whilst there is certainly an assertion of importance for Koso, the references provided are all very brief and don't go into much depth. Is there any coverage of Koso in other languages that might go into a bit more detail about him? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone - Like I mentioned that it is difficult to source an article from a remote part of the world and so this article is currently listed under:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia with authentic sources and like you mentioned “whilst there is certainly an assertion of importance for Koso, the references provided are all very brief and don't go into much depth. Is there any coverage of Koso in other languages that might go into a bit more detail about him?.” I am sure that the article can be improved in the coming days. Anonymousme (talk) 05:35, 09 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep vote carries little weight but with minimal participation, another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After 3 weeks and two relists, the only consensus is for the article to be kept. Improvements have been made since the start of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hayward[edit]

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

Possible autobiography, or COI biography (the author appears to be a single-purpose account). Sources consist of primary sources, citations to the subject's own works, or citations to the subject's publisher. Questionable meeting WP:JOURNALIST criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep numerous in-depth reviews of his books (e.g. Variety) are cited in the article. The article does need some cleanup. Possibly (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done some cleanup and added about four more reviews e.g. this in the New Statesman and this in the Guardian). Multiple reviews of his collective body of work (the books) means he meets WP:NAUTHOR point #3. Possibly (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this still needs a lot of work; several of the citations are by him, not about him. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I don't think that is correct. I count 4/18 of the cited sources as being authored by Hayward. The others are largely independent reviews about him. At least one other has the phrase "by Anthony Hayward" in its title, but is an independent review where the title refers to the work being reviewed. Possibly (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that this page needs a lot of editing, even to be a "start"-level article. I would suggest to draftify it. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Why would we suddenly draftify a 2010 article that meets GNG? It's not in such bad shape. I'm honestly perpelexed at the effort to move someone who is clearly notable out of article space. This article is a clear-cut keep. Possibly (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because after 20 years, we have to value quality over quantity. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Possibly. Draftification is inappropriate here -- for an article of this tenure, it would be a de facto G13. It's not the greatest article ever written, but I strongly disagree with the 'worse than a redlink' status that would justify quality-over-quantity deletion -- it's a usable resource for readers, even if puffy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep possibly enough to pass Basic #2. I added another reference to his work. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Monteiro (footballer)[edit]

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

Starting a discussion at request of User:Paul Vaurie on WT:FOOTY. The concern is that the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: this 100% fails WP:NFOOTY - the French Division 2 was not fully-professional until the 1993–94 season. The real question is whether this fails GNG or not. If it does, then delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: PSG won promotion that year to Ligue 1 that year, Cannes were fully professional, most of the league was by then too. If someone can find some sources of his time in Brazil this would help. Article and sources look ok, I see no reason to delete for the sake of deleting. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; FPL says that Ligue 2 was not fully pro in the 1970s and therefore playing in that league does not confer any automatic notability. GiantSnowman 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails football notability. The coverage otherwise is not enough to suggest it the subject is so notable we should ignore this failure of the relevant guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am not impressed with the sources used, however, because of the age of the player who is now deceased there maybe more offline sources. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to have to say delete for this one. As much as any player with PSG on his CV makes him look notable, I can't find anything particularly notable about him. Unless scoring the second ever goal at the Parc des Princes counts. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just want to confirm where I stand with this article as I only created this AfD procedurally. I believe the deletion arguments to be stronger. Monteiro does not meet NFOOTBALL and the coverage is not enough for a GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NFOOTBALL and GNG, ping me if anyone finds offline sources. --Kemalcan (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Lincoln Project#Strategies. Clear consensus not to retain a standlone. Plausible search term, so I am closing as redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow caucus[edit]

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

Neologism, does not seem to satisfy WP:N yet. The article WP:WEASELly claims that it is being "used by critics " and "has been used by experts such as Stuart Stevens" of the The Lincoln Project, but does not mention any other such experts. The citations (several of which seem to be near-duplicates) indicate that the term was used by Stevens last month as a TV pundit (appearing in Jonathan Capehart's recently launched The Sunday Show), and around the same time featured in a Lincoln Project ad; and that other members of the group have also used the term since then. It's certainly a pithy epithet and may well catch on in the future, but as of now the article does not show wider usage. HaeB (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The fact that the article's creator adorned it with the Ideological caucuses in the U.S. Congress navbox and also included it in the corresponding category suggests a possible misunderstanding about the meaning of congressional caucus. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally per nom. All the sources refer to the same handful of times the phrase was used, and some of them don't even contain the phrase "Jim Crow caucus." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also be fine with a Redirect as outlined below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails the WP:5P2; calling it the "Jim Crow caucus" is not neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact one of the people listed her is Hispanic makes this very name very questionable. It also has very stong POV-pushing, and is clearly pejoritive in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will not catch on because it is a very clear case of character assasination and lieing against people. I am sick and tired of Wikipedia being taken over by extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to deny those who disagree with them political power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A commonly used term in US political discourse. --Tataral (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect to The Lincoln Project as suggested below seems like a sensible solution. --Tataral (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Lincoln Project#Strategies, this is not an independently notable pejorative, it only received coverage for a brief period of time when the currently not-looking too stable Lincoln Project used it in their ads. As a concept it is far better covered on the main Lincoln Project article, there is not enough here for a WP:SPLIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a nonsense term used in a political ad by the Lincoln Project and some of its its members. It caught media attention for approximately 5 seconds, and then it vanished from existence. Wholly WP:NOTNEWS, and, as others have said, there's a strong POV to it. (I couldn't help but notice that it's included in the Anti-intellectualism Category for some odd reason). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Lincoln Project#Strategies as is mentioned there, doesn't appear notable by itself. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getit[edit]

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

Advertisement of the company. references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2011-09 ✗ G11
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Douglas[edit]

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

Not sure if he passes GNG. He writes news articles, he isn't the subject of them. As a UN Drugs and Crime representative for a certain region, he is supposed to publicise the war on drugs. His post isn't something that directly qualifies him either, he's the regional representative for a unit of UN. Daiyusha (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Douglas is certainly noteworthy and passes under GNG as, in addition to his well known work and active commentary in major governance, policy and security discussions within the international media landscape (and specifically the Asia Pacific), he has featured in several related investigative films (will be cited shortly) and is actively referenced as an authority on major international events in this space by fellow experts and policy makers. Additionally, several individuals holding similar positions within UNODC, other UN agencies and other international organizations outside of the UN have pages created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimefighter123 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs — we're an encyclopedia, not a LinkedIn clone — but this article is not referenced properly for the purposes of establishing his notability. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles by being the author of media content about other things, or by being quoted as a giver of soundbite in media content about other things — they get into Wikipedia by being the subject of media coverage created and published by other people. None of the footnotes here meet the necessary standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat's well reasoned argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Invader (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation contains only the primary target and a link to Hercules (wrestler). Hatnotes at those two pages already accomplish disambiguation. See also Talk:Super Invader#Requested move 17 November 2020. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Bellerby[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER (Sergeant with no significant awards) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Second aerial victory by Manfred von Richthofen is pure WP:1E. Can be redirected to List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because you are killed by a notable person in the course of war does not make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Dirleton[edit]

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

I have only rudimentary knowledge of how British nobility is addressed, but this doesn't seem right. I don't think titles are shortened in this manner. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous respectable sources which refer to a Lord Dirleton such as the DNB. As there has been more than one holder of the title, a dab page seems appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service Coordination[edit]

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

While they undoubtedly do good work, I can find no evidence that this spinoff of The Arc of Frederick County is notable. Relevant hits (a challenge, due to name and for the same reason I don't think this is good redirect target) limited to job placements and other minor mentions. Nothing significant, in depth or independent. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete due to lack of proper sources, however thismay just be due to the difficult to search name. Alternatively Merge back into The Arc of Frederick County which is currently a very short stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the absence of any evidence it was ever a town, but ping for undelete if that changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dow, California[edit]

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

An interesting exercise in failed photointerpretation going on here, as the topos initially show a siding with a large tank and some other industrial buildings which gets replaced, on the maps at any rate, by a bunch of buildings, many of which are H-shaped. More recent, higher-resolution images reveal them to be stacks of pipe on the grounds of the Westar logistics facility which has taken over the area. I have to presume that "Dow" meant the chemical company, but at any rate the evidence is that this was always a rail/industrial site. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This result on Google Maps shows a community. And there are mulitple sidings and tailings ponds. So, not sure. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not show a "community". First of all, the larger area is an industrial zone, not a town. Second, going back historically, Dow itself starts out as a small area right next to the tracks at the northeast corner of the present developed area; I do not have any clear indication that anyone ever thought of the larger area as "Dow". Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Batherson[edit]

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

No major roles, no major competitions won--the highest rank seems to be "finalist" in a talent show. Even 10 years ago, I'm a little puzzled that this wasn't spotted. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He seems to have had many minor roles. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Utopia[edit]

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

The first title from this imprint went on to become a notable series. There's no evidence the imprint is notable, and with neither the TV show nor their founders' articles mentioning it other than in passing as co-founders, there's no obvious redirect. The production house has no article and with only five titles there's no evidence it's notable enough to build an article to redirect this to. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and poorly referenced. No inherent notability, only by association. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a month, there is no clear consensus one way or another. As ritchie notes, the delete !votes are generally rather lacking in policy, but there is not substantial weight or strength behind the 'keep' votes to establish a clear keep consensus. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Costello[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about being one of two people from a specific geographic area to die in a rebellion. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable individual. Not everyone who dies in a revolt automatically becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I’ve added six references. On the one hand it is true that little is known about his life so there’s a lack of in depth coverage. On the other hand there are three factors. First, the number who died in the 1916 uprising was not great, so they are very commonly listed by name and regarded as being of national significance even if they were otherwise quite ordinary men; second, the fact that he is buried in Ireland’s equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery; and thirdly, that he is important enough to have had a memorial built to him in Lurgan which is very controversial and itself been the subject of news coverage in Northern Ireland. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, one of two X to die during Y is no basis for notability and sources aren't there. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Was not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. Venusecxces (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete arguments are all very weak and arguments to avoid, but only one keep argument has been placed. Need further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mccapra. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that now with the addition of the statue/monument controversy, he is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Boldly closing speedily per WP:SNOW, consensus for deletion is extremely unlikely to develop. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rees (airman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Being the first airman killed by Manfred von Richthofen doesn't make you notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a brief perusal, most of the references are about the Red Baron. The ones about Rees are either not about him specifically or insubstantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC demonstrates that there's no consensus for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is clearly based on GNG also, not just SOLDIER. I do not understand your POINT argument, what are you trying to say? Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
POINT is the converse of IAR – unproductive activity to prove or score a point. For example, Mztourist recently went through my contributions and twice nominated the Dog & Bull for deletion. They failed and the article recently adorned the main page too. It was read there by thousands of people who had no complaints. See also vexatious litigation.
As for GNG, the subject clearly passes it as it would not have gotten through AfC and DYK otherwise.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson I am asking you what you are saying is POINT about this AFD? POINTy is you and your friends putting up AFD pages for DYK and then holding that up as a sign that the page shouldn't be deleted despite a lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No virtue in that argument.
The two of you have a repeated failure at WP:AFD, flouting WP:Before, and the articles are developed with sources you should have foundwith due diligence. These go on to successful DYK nominations and are on the front page. This state of facts only proves how misguided these AFDs are.
It's not about you. It is about the subject, the sources (including those that are out there, even if not cited) and the article as it develops.
The prosecution rests. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What repeated failure are you referring to? Poorly sourced pages are put up for AFD, debated and a consensus reached or not. Andrew Davidson says that this is a POINTy AFD and I am asking him what is POINTy about it and am yet to receive a credible answer. As far as your "prosecution" goes you haven't proven anything other than that you will Keep any page no matter how weak and irrelevant the sourcing is. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An essay is not even close to policy. It goes policy->guideline->consensus-by-common-usage->essay. Essay is the last/weakest type of consensus. The reason is anyone (or a few people) can create an essay that says whatever. Also, I would like to see that discussion you refer to, most of the time they are not so clearly resolved and/or tend to be dominated by a handful of people. -- GreenC 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom cited SOLDIER and GNG. If they didn't cite SOLDIER someone would doubtless raise it and as the nom notes below it still represents MilHist consensus at least until the discussion: [43] closes. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is rich. Noms are citing SOLDIER in dozens or hundreds of AfDs while at the same time there is a discussion to deprecate SOLDIER, with most !oting to kill it. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? Both the nom and I acknowledge the discussion regarding SOLDIER, which is why the nom also mentioned GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andrew Davidson and 7&6=thirteen are clearly engaged in a witch hunt to try and point out faults with my arguments on almost every single AFD I've filed in the past month or so. I remind them; WP:SOLDIER is a consensus that was established by the military history wikiproject. It may not be official policy, but it's the closest you can get to it. If it is deleted, I would understand their arguments, but it hasn't been deleted. :::::Lettlerhello • contribs 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lettler This is not a "witch hunt." If you insist, then stop being a witch and doing silly AFDs.
You apparently are a slow learner, at least as to what AFD is about. It should not be about establishing your body count. If it hurts when you do this, don't do it anymore.
N.b., I was at this article FIRST. I built it up, and got a DYK. Many years ago. You did not have this account at the time; so as far as I know, you were not even a blip on my radar then.
Stop following me. WP:Stalking. WP:Pot. You caused the problem, and now want to blame me. Chutzpah.
You came to me, not the other way around. So stop with the sanctimonious bullshit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctimonious? That's rich coming from you who wrote this: [44] Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You folks nominated scores of articles for deletion all at once. You want to wear that cloak? Go for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes GNG as was determined by an earlier AfD and DYK. This AfD appears to be part of a larger ongoing war, another smoking battlefield. There is no place to merge without creating an over-WEIGHT problem in the target article. Keep per WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- GreenC 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "earlier AFD"? Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fine, well constructed, well documented, easy to read and look at article. It should stay. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Common sense and good editorial judgment intrudes into this discussion. Thank you User:Carptrash. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:GNG above, and also per WP:ANYBIO, Rees "received [...] well-known and significant award[s]" that received news coverage, including BBC News, when they were sold at auction. From BBC News: "Such a group of medals, although hard-earned, would normally be regarded as somewhat commonplace, but the facts behind these humble medals make them a very special item," says Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh." Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "well-known and significant award[s]"? he received a set of very ordinary medals that only have any significance because of his WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are "significant" because the BBC says they are ("very special item"). That you disagree with the BBC is a matter of your personal opinion, but objectively we report what sources say, in this case an assertion of notability. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you mean "Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh" says they are a "very special item" as reported by the BBC? See the difference? As I said earlier, the awards themselves are not significant, their only significance is the WP:1E association with von Richthofen. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant "reported by BBC News," which is also in-depth reporting about Rees in December 1999, in addition to helping make his medals "well known," per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr you and GreenC are completely perverting #1 of ANYBIO here. #1 states "a well-known and significant award or honor", i.e. a VC, MoH etc., Rees's awards are stated in the BBC report to be "somewhat commonplace" so they absolutely fail #1. The fact that the medals have acquired some value/collectability because of their association with von Richthofen does not somehow elevate them to satisfying #1. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you may disagree but don't call my position "perverted", are you perverted? Second, I never cited ANYBIO, I said GNG and this is "significant" coverage. Significant because it demonstrates notability asserted by the source in three words ("very special item"). -- GreenC 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is temporally relative; this airman was always notable for his distinguished career, apart being the Red Baron's first victim and the historical significance of his medals; he is still notable now. Many "notables" of today's Wikipedia will not be remembered in ten years' time, let alone 100+. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, Rees had no notability at the time of his death and only later became known for the retrospective WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill.Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point. Does not fail WP:SOLDIER

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable (conversely, a person who meets these criteria is not necessarily notable, if no significant coverage can be found); ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.

nor does it fail WP:GNG, so the two reasons for deletion fail.Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per available references. Meets WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rees is way more notable that many of the minor sports and entertainment personalities cluttering up Wikipedia who will be forgotten in a couple of decades.Bermicourt (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to the respective surname pages.

Senators pages[edit]

Senator Demuzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senator Hunhoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senator Marovitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senator Orechio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senator Stadelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Same issue as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator Bordallo. Basically, these are just the standard name pages (Demuzio, etc.) with the "Senator"s, but since in these cases everyone in these pages is already a senator, it's just a clone of content, and not additionally helpful in any way. --Quiz shows 02:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --Quiz shows 02:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like an argument to redirect to their respective surname pages, which would also match the result of the aforementioned precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What about the rest of the entries in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about them? Most don't have 100% overlap with the surname pages, so would be poor(er) candidates for redirection. -- Tavix (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only nominated the ones that are 100% overlap with a surname page, like Tavix says. Some of the ones that don't overlap are still probably redundant since they are split from very small pages, I looked briefly now, and Gudger, Motlow, Niblack, Proudfit all have Senator pages that aren't really necessary in my opinion. The ones for common names are not so bad. --Quiz shows 04:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Missed that. Redirect to their respective surname pages per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rouff[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence he's notable for his marketing/comms work, nor as an author. There are event listings for author talks/signings, but the only in depth pieces I've found are interviews/blurbs so they don't work. Mollifiednow did some updating and source hunting late last year but was similarly unable to take this article further. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how surprising. A public relations guru has an entirely undue article on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ANYBIO. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's written some articles for magazines and self-published a book. Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person in the advertising industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google search turned up reliable sources, which I have added to the article. A search also found that the subject has written three books, two of which were released by traditional publishing houses, he won a state award, and he contributed to a fourth book, a collection of short stories co-written with authors in the US and UK. The subject and his books have been featured in multiple articles, including in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and he regularly appears on Nevada public radio. I cleaned up the article, removed puffery, and added content with reliable sources to show notability. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the coverage added is either local to him or an interview or both, so it fails WP:N, which demands sources that are independent (interviews fail here) and which indicate interest from the world at large (local-only sources fail here). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Deposit, No Return (2004 film)[edit]

No Deposit, No Return (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Deposit, No Return (2004 film) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No reliable sources. Article sourced to IMDB and one other source which the page no longer exists. Not a single indication of notability from secondary sources other than IMDB. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. --ConnickyCockDiscuss with Connicky 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSMN8[edit]

DSMN8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see ref. 1, but ref 2 is a general article barely mentioning the company, ref . 3 is a mere mention on an official lis tto show existence, and ref 4 is another general article, including quotes from this company along with the discussion of much else. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, the RS's only mention the subject incidentally (ChicTrib literally in a single sentence), and the Digiday piece (which I don't know whether it's RS or not) is on TikTok, not on the article subject. May be a case of too soon, but as it stands, fails notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion not a Yellow Pages. None of the references meet NCORP requirements for establishing notability. The FT piece mentions this company, in passing, in a much larger piece about employees becoming social media "influencers" for the company they work for. It is neither in-depth nor significant, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Chicago Tribune piece is a similar story to the FT piece and is also only a mention-in-passing for this company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reasons. Finally, yes, the Digiday article is covering the same topic - "employee influencers" - and the information on the company is provided by the marketing manager, fails WP:ORGIND. The article also provides no in-depth nor significant information/analysis/opinion on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most other articles I can find are announcements, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wide agreement here that GNG is met. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Beightol[edit]

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

Not my field at all, but I thought the requirement for notabiltiy as a coach did not extend to assistant coaches. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I leave it to other people's judgment. Myself,I think notability in sports does or at least ought to require both the GNG and the SNG, and I also disagree that a nominal period of participation at the highest level is sufficient., especially if it's apparently a temporary position. I know others may disagree, as people tend to disagree on everything involving most of the SNGs. In this area, I make no judgments myself, but justpropose discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, that appears to be a clear violation of WP:BEFORE, which instructs that "[p]rior to nominating article(s) for deletion," you should "[s]earch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." And your view that sports-related notability "ought to require both the GNG and the SNG" is squarely at odds with policy, which states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) ..., or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." In any event, it seems clear that Beightol:
  1. Meets the general notability guidelines (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject)
  2. Meets the subject-specific notability guidelines for college football coaches (served as a full-time head coach for a D-I program)
Equally, the notability guideline for professional football coaches simply "does not apply to assistant coaches or coaching assistants"; that hardly means that someone who has been an assistant professional football coach cannot demonstrate notability by other means, as Beightol clearly has. --02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep we typically find that college head football coaches pass WP:GNG and this one seems to be no exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comfortably passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/virginia-young-dems-teen-republicans/2021/01/31/21e54dca-6228-11eb-9061-07abcc1f9229_story.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_16&oldid=1008795902"