Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 02	February 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Colorado's 5th congressional district election[edit]

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

This article does not pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. It's literally just an average election race. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5, this appears to have been created while this election was still going on and it has not been updated since then, large chunks of the article are still in the present tense. Neither it or the main article are long enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Devonian Wombat. I'll also have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. Love of Corey (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An "average" election for an idividual seat in a national legislature is definitely notable and is deserving of a standalone WP article. There are sufficient sources in the article already to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nsk92: No, it's not. It was not a special election, but a regular election that would've occurred in early November every two years regardless of who held that seat. That's why it's better suited to be merged into the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona list-article thingy and nothing else. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we 'should", but if someone takes the time to create such articles, then yes, absolutely, they should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're just arguing to keep an article just for the sake of keeping it per WP:ILIKEIT. The 2005 Colorado's 5th district election is not infamous and notable enough to guarantee it's own separate article. The article creator probably created it in good faith, but just because one person thought it was notable does not mean we should trust their word on it. Stop playing devil's advocate (WP:DEVIL) and give an actual argument. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election. There is no basis whatsoever for automatic notability for individual seats' elections: the content can be covered just as well in the main state article. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the GNG[1][2][3][4] and too unwieldy to merge everything into general Colorado article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Colorado article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't need to be reduced to a paragraph, hence the standalone article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except it can be reduced to a paragraph in a section, hence why I suggested a deletion and a merger. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ITSCRUFT Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing super special about 2006, other than it was a time when Wikipedia was a wild-west of unfettered article creation. No one has explained why this year is special and the only year when we create articles for ach specific district election, so we should delete these non-conforming articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Devonian Wombat and Number 57. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:38, 11 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Winget[edit]

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

Almost no information. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While short, the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC point #5 (holding a named chair post). —Kbabej (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. Nomination provides no WP:DELREASON. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to mostly publish as "D. E. Winget"; searching Google Scholar for that author name [5] finds citation counts 512, 404, 357, 327, ..., easily good enough for WP:PROF#C1 on top of the pass of #C5 already clear from the as-nominated article. I don't think the Trumpler Award [6] contributes much more towards notability but it should also be mentioned in the article. Also, WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the comments above, clearly satisfies WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. I have expanded the article a bit, with the refs to a couple of newsarticles about his work and also the info about his 1987 Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy. The article can certainly be expanded further. I suggest that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination to save everybody some time. Nsk92 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as passing multiple PROF criteria (C1 due to citations, C5 due to named chair).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost no information is better than no information. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he clearly meets Academic notability #5. For what it is worth though do we distinguish named professorships from named chairs? A few weeks ago I noticed that the J. Reuben Clark Law School has both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets several criteria for NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The reason stated in the nomination is not valid. no WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 18:07, 4 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 and redirect to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morshu[edit]

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

Should be a redirect, but an ip is insistent on recreating this article about a fictional character, which doesn't come close to having enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Zero real-world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another person mentioned that Morshu is a very well known internet meme. I agree and believe that Morshu is a big enough character on the internet to keep his article.
Delete - I was in the process of writing a nomination myself. The pre-existing redirect target, Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, barely mentions Morshu so I think that deletion is more appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was one step away from reporting the user for repeated vandalism anyway, so may as well get this out of the way first. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Rosguill. The character is so minor, and is not even really covered on the article for the game, so Deletion would be far more appropriate than keeping it, even as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few minor, passing mentions. Not close to passing WP:NFICTION or GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason I personally believe that Morshu deserved his own article is because of how massive he has been on the internet for over a decade. I did personally feel that with multiple articles that covered him, I personally felt that was good enough considering of how unique his case is. Yes I know that he is only known for memes and not his own appearance, but I personally felt that kind of cemented his staying power on the internet. I mean yes, IGN and GameSpot never mentioned him in an article of their own, but that's mainly because he was only in one game released almost three decades ago. His staying power is solely because of the internet despite him being rather insignificant in his own game. And considering his staying power is so large, I feel that is deserving of an article. However, if you guys don't see it that way, I think a good compromise would be to mention the YTPs and the many other memes that were made because of the CD-i games. I say that because when it comes to early video mashups online, they were dominated by theses vids. Vinnylospo (talk) 1:18, 4 Feburary 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. Per WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#KEEP there is no reason to get rid of a harmless redirect that is potentially useful to readers (for example, one could imagine a reader coming across a reference to Morshu and typing it into the search bar to see what the name is from). WanderingWanda (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WanderingWanda, Ok, but redirect where? Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's what I'd do (Incidentally, I think I'd also like to add a sentence or two to that article about this fan render of the character: [7][8][9]) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like that too, along with maybe the many memes that he and other characters have gotten over the years. I think that's the perfect compromise. Vinnylospo (talk) 1:18, 4 Feburary 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, where Morshu is mentioned. There are only two short pieces in reliable sources, both by the same author on Nintendo Life,[10][11] which does not suffice for GNG. IceWelder [✉] 07:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to not having WP:SIGCOV to make this notable. Jontesta (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon per WP:ATD, since the character's notoriety is solely derived from their appearances in that particular series of games. Just because the subject topic is barely mentioned in prior versions of the target article, does not mean content cannot be added. Haleth (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This character's only notability is being in a meme. Either delete the page or merge it with List of internet phenomena. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least for now Jenyire2 11:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage, and does not pass WP:NFICTION or WP:GNG. There are some passing mentions at best. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon – the character is mentioned in that article so there is a target – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:11, 10 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. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEIC[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. A non-notable, orphaned, and unsourced article on a pharmaceutical company that has been tagged with {{advert}} and {{more citations needed}} since 2018. A COI editor recently added promotional material and removed the PROD. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes the company exists as they are advertising for jobs on indeed, but nothing else other than mentions on people's own Linkin pages. Also doesn't help that name is also used by MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYERS INSURANCE Company and MEIC Ltd, and Murphy-Electrical and Industry Control LLC.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article the gets it past WP:COMPANY, there is no article in other languages, A search does not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 18:05, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chucklewood Critters[edit]

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

This TV show was recently soft deleted and is not G4 eligible. The article, a list of characters, cites no sources whatsoever. IMDb tells me that the show ran for two years in the 90s but I've found no evidence of reliable sources engaging with it. So, I think the original deletion reason is still valid (WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA ). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything beyond routine notifications of when it aired or the home video copies going up for sale. It existed, but seems to have gained little attention despite airing in multiple countries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find several minor mentions, but nothing that meets WP:NMEDIA Jeepday (talk) 18:08, 9 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 and redirect to Matt Brash. Daniel (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Vet at Large[edit]

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

Ignore the nonsense content in the article. That's vandalism that could be addressed if the show or presenter were notable, but I cannot find any evidence that it was. Nowhere to redirect as the host (Matt Brash) redirects to the article and the only article I found about him isn't enough to meet WP:BIO. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with TNT Although I remember the series, WP:Before does not actually show any real coverage, with just passing mentions about the programme in news stories about the host. Current page is just drivel so delete and if someone can find any real sigcov then they can rewrite properly. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's also this article on Matt Brash, but I still don't think there's enough for WP:GNG either for him or the show; it's a little closer for him, but the content here would need WP:TNT so there's no point moving the article and refocusing even if he were found to meet GNG. (In particular, the history would probably have to be WP:REVDELled anyway based on the long quote from the presumably copyrighted blurb to the book, the inclusion of which I can't see is justified by fair use.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Cunard has made an article (amazing, thank you) about Matt Brash, I'd support changing this to a redirect to that article. But I think technically that should be effected as a delete-then-redirect, given the copyright issues I mentioned with the page history. If just straight-up converted to a redirect I'll just nominate the relevant bits of the history for REVDEL, so no real harm either way. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have removed the blatant vandalism, but it still isn't notable, is unsourced, and is a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Brash, the star of Zoo Vet at Large, after I created an article about him. Cunard (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd withdraw, but I share the same copyvio concerns as YorkshireLad and suspect some of the BLP vandalism would need to go too. StarM 23:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Brash per arguments existing Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 9 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Winter[edit]

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

This article is poorly written and the subject isn't notable enough for it to be improved. Vader13289 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a plot summary with a reception based solely on some niche resource Comic Book Roundup. Seems to fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBR is not niche -- it is the most prominent comics review aggregator. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:COPYVIO - The text itself is not in violation, but several of the citations are sourced to a piracy website. That is not acceptable. Sorry for the creator since the links were added by an anonymous IP, but it unfortunately propagated to further use by future editors. I have tagged for rev del, and perhaps when done, I'll adjust, but I'm not opposed to this being WP:G12 just to clear the slate. It has potential for notability given that the roundup links have several reliable review sources with editorial oversight, but that can be dealt with later. -- 2pou (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the rev del has now been taken care of. No need for G12, now. New !vote below. -2pou (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~If this wasn't so poorly constructed, this would be an easy keep because~~ publications from DC can almost always pass GNG. A basic search turns up coverage that could be used to craft a publication history section (per this and this, it was planned to last two months but was compressed to five weeks). This talks about its broader impact. The "niche" resource CBRU is a review aggregator that acts as Rotten Tomatoes for comics. I can't support the way it's used in the article currently, but it's an excellent resource for locating reviews of the comic from reliable sources and making sure there's an accurate representation of the reviews. ~~Still, WP:TNT may apply here, as I don't have the time to implement any of these improvements. If another enterprising editor does, please ping me.~~ Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided not to wait. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lawrencekhoo: I wasn't aware EVENT applied to works of fiction... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe speedy considering the WP:COPYVIO. No claim for notability in secondary independent sources per WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Argento's points are valid, and the specified sources satisfy GNG. Speedying for copyvio doesn't make sense as the offending edits have been revdel'd. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ArgentoSurfer. Now that the COPYVIO has been taken care of, there are enough sources that WP:NEXIST to satisfy GNG. Not the best article, but it can be improved without deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the delete votes provided a vague statement about the topic failing WP:GNG, but none have explained how or why the existing or potential sourcing available for the subject topic fail to demonstrate the subject's notability. With the WP:COPYVIO issue taken care of by ArgentoSurfer, speedy deletion is no longer a valid outcome. Haleth (talk) 14:54, 9 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 List of NGC objects (1001–2000). Consensus is that the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore is not considered notable by the majority of editors. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1016[edit]

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

Non-notable galaxy. Source search returns only the typical trivial sources and other mentions in large tables. Following convention of previous NGC object deletion discussions, the article should be redirected to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). I am nominating for deletion since it appears that Felix558 has contested my redirect. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason to delete page NGC 1016. It gives main data and descriptions about this celestial body, and it even shows 2 pictures of this galaxy, so I do not see why this page should be singled out and deleted. What is there against policies and guidelines of Wikipedia?

This astronomical object also meets the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article (as described here: Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Criteria), because it is "listed in a catalogue of high historical importance or a catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". This object is listed in the famous New General Catalogue.

I really can not see any logic in the initiative started by Sam-2727 to delete this article and replace it with a plain redirect.

Felix558 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Note: Moved from talk page of deletion discussion Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Felix558, apologies, I should've been clearer in my reasoning here. The NGC catalog used to be thought of as a catalog of high historical importance. Indeed, when you created this article, it was listed explicitly as such on WP:NASTRO. However, since then, it has been determined that although the NGC catalog might be of high historical importance, it is simply too large to expect an article for every object (see this discussion). While some NGC objects might meet the general criteria (see WP:Notability), i.e. having three or more independent, reliable sources that mention the object significantly, some won't. In this case, I don't believe the object in question meets these criteria, although I would withdraw my nomination for deletion if you provide such sources. The reason I "single out" your article is because I've been going through the list of NGC objects slowly and culling the ones that I don't believe are notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion. You were right that there are way more objects in the NGC catalogue than in the Messier catalogue. On the other hand there are countless astronomical objects in the observable Universe, and only about 7000 of them were selected and included in the New General Catalogue - that should make all of them notable, in my opinion. More importantly, we also have this in the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article: "Catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". What about that? Astronomical object from the NGC catalogue are frequent targets for amateur astronomers. I also found multiple websites where descriptions of observations / photographs of NGC 1016 made by amateur astronomers can be seen. Felix558 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the catalog as a whole is of high amateur interest, as are select objects, individual objects in the catalog aren't necessarily of high amateur interest. Simple pictures of the object aren't indicative of high amateur interest I believe. That would dictate "normal" amateur interest. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well it's the brightest member of the NGC 1016 galaxy group. Unfortunately the group itself is not particularly significant. All I can find for this galaxy are data entries and a small blurb in a book;[12] no discussion or dedicated studies. By itself it's not very notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if nobody shows up to reinforce my viewpoint here, then I agree with the deletion (since my viewpoint is currently in the minority). Felix558 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is decription, the type of galaxy is mentioned. I do not see why this article should be deleted. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
restore to redirect The pictures and the discovery info are the only things that aren't already in the table. It wouldn't be the end of the world to keep this, but there's no claim to general notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, there is no practical limit to the number of articles. We therefore have no need of a cull of such historical discoveries. The page in question seems fine and has a nice picture. Merging it into a long and bloated list would be less practical and so we should leave well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, that reasoning goes against past consensus on astronomy object articles. Another discussion on this is welcome, but we decided that these objects should be removed from the astronomy notability criteria. The reasoning being that there are probably tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of astronomy objects that could rise to this level of notability. See WP:NASTRO: In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. This object does not rise to the level fo WP:GNG, nor does it meet any of the specific criteria at WP:NASTRO. The NGC catalog, due to its large size and to be honest, fairly careless addition of objects, doesn't meet the WP:NASTRO requirements of "high historic importance" (the catalog as a whole is of historical interest as are some individual objects in it, but not every individual object). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a broader view that SNGs are problematic as they tend to represent local consensus rather than the general readership. The NGC is highly reputable and respectable. It only contains about 8,000 objects which is tiny compared to the total number out there which is literally astronomical. We have over six million articles and so this is a negligible increment. And, as the page already exists, where is the added value in making it disappear? It's a nonsense and our policies do not support it. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). There's no argument for why this galaxy should be notable, either in the article or in this discussion. We don't keep articles just because there's no lack of space, we keep articles because they're notable. This is just one out of thousands of galaxies in the sky, with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically. There's not even any information to write about it in the article, other than to note its early discovery. If anybody cares about that it can be added as a footnote in the list. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still think it would be wrong to delete this article. It was not only included in the famous NGC catalog, it was also included in several scientific stuides/papers. Tercer, you wrote "with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically", but that is not correct. For example, this scientific paper mentions this galaxy specifically on page 7 and in the tables. This published paper is also mentioning it, since the NGC 1016 was analyzed in that research. NGC 1016 was also included in this published paper, and also in this. The book "Proceedings of the 4th Cosmic Physics Conference" is mentioning this galaxy on page 493. Felix558 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out several times, merely being included in the NGC catalog doesn't make an object notable. See the discussion here. Also, per WP:NASTRO being mentioned in a huge table of astronomical objects doesn't make an object notable. The paper needs to actually discuss the object. Your first reference has NGC 1016 only in tables, and in a trivial mention of its properties in the text. Not enough. I can't open your second reference. Your third reference only has NGC 1016 as an entry in a table. Not enough. Your fourth reference only has it as entries in tables, and a trivial mention in the text. Not enough. The mention in the book is also completely trivial. The bottom line is, people don't care about this galaxy specifically, and there just isn't anything to write about other than its basic properties. Tercer (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect NGC objects are not automatically notable and need more coverage than passing listings. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Gloucestershire Association Football League[edit]

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

It got minor coverage in local papers back in the day; the results were occasionally printed in the Gloucester Citizen and the Gloucestershire Echo and these papers occasionally reported on the AGMs as well. See here and here. This league doesn't seem any more notable than the 15 or so that we deleted last year nor do I think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local leagues getting minor coverage in local papers does not notability make. Giant Snowman 21:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sub-county-level leagues generally only get local coverage. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet to be the notability standards for its niche Jenyire2 11:47, 10 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. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knut S. Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. Expired federal judicial nominee who was never confirmed. Not independently notable under WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no presumption of notability under WP:JUDGE, and I'm not seeing enough to meet the GNG. WP:USCJN, although not policy, is instructive: these sorts of nominations are generally not notable unless there's some sort of controversy involved. His legal career presents a somewhat closer question - this article does provide some substantial coverage - but on balance I don't think it's enough to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In these situations, I think it is worth noting that where the president's party also controls the Senate, the nominees that are important to them get pushed through, and those that are not are let slide. BD2412 T 23:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit I do not like the fact the article falsely says he was a US judge when he never was. Nominees are not judges, and while some who get nominated get enough coverage for that without being confirmed, his is not such a case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Johnpacklambert: The article never says he was a judge. It says he was a nominee to be a judge. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you are right. Still he does not meet notability guidelines. Judges are notable, not nominees. At least not at the district court level. The Federal Circuit maybe mere nominees will be notable, but I doubt any district judge who is not confirmed is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys and concurring with Johnpacklambert. Lots of lawyers get nominated to the district bench who end up in the dustbins of the Senate. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Patrick[edit]

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

Feel like this needs more than PROD. He's a practicing attorney who has been frequently mentioned in the press, but there's no evidence any of the coverage is in depth or about it. His highest profile case appears to be one to which he contributed an amicus brief, rather than took an active part in litigation. Note: he is not the Michael Patrick who is the Hofstra Dean. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. This appears to be an exercise in attempting to construct an appearance of notability by inheritance from tertiary relationships with notable matters. I also note that the article was created by a WP:SPA, which is never a good sign for a topic of commercial interest. BD2412 T 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments from User:BD2412. I looked on Google and other than at where he is a partner and legal listing sites I found ditto. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards. He just has not done more than the average lawyer. Even I have been asked from time to time by the media to comment on cases, but my several appearances in Business Review and on WRPI do not make me notable. Compare Mark S. Zaid, for example. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practically all of the content of the article was added by WP:SPAs, which on these types of article always makes me suspicious that someone in the office of the businessperson has written and updated the article over time. Substantively, the subject has done nothing that would make him notable among attorneys. New York has no end of law firm partners who specialize in intellectual property, have written articles in law journals, and who have been on CNBC. Those facts don't make him notable. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:11, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Smith Corporation[edit]

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

No indication that this meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, the only SIGCOV I found was an article from industry magazine [13] Jumpytoo Talk 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of content that can be sourced to WP:RS suggests that the company is notable enough to be an article topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS appears missing Jenyire2 11:48, 10 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) 21:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Knights[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG; I did a WP:BEFORE search but found nothing more than a name check. According to Ozfootball, she had a very short career. No coverage in ProQuest at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure you did a WP:BEFORE search, but it will anyway be hard to find information about a player with the popular name Amy and the common surname Knight. Too bad you don't use all your free research time to improve existing articles instead of opening endless AFDs. --SuperJew (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To limit the results to this Amy Knights, I searched her name in connection with clubs that she has played for. In this case, it looks like she only played for Perth so my search was in connection with Perth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're limiting to the information you already know from the article. How does one expand the information in the article if one is limiting themselves to what is already there? --SuperJew (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ozfootball, World Football and Sport.de all only show the 5 substitute appearances at Perth so, if she did play anywhere else, it isn't likely to be at a high level, certainly not as high as the W-League anyway. On the balance of probabilities, it seems very unlikely that she is notable. If the article is deleted, it can always be restored should sufficient evidence of notability ever arise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to enough sourcing to justify passing of GNG. It is time to start ridding Wikipedia of these micro-stubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Why? What harm is there with the micro-stubs. Of course I would prefer to have them expanded as much as possible, but how is having no information more helpful than having a few lines and basic details? --SuperJew (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What harm is there? lots. They make it that much harder to identify hoaxes and are a key reason why we have had hoax articles exist for over a decade to begin with. They inherently violate the principles of verrifiability which is a key guideline for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So long as the article (however short it is) is referenced by verifiable reliable sources then it is verifiable and doesn't affect how hard it is to find hoaxes or not. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnpacklambert:, you really need to read WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IMPATIENT. The fact an article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, over an over again these stub articles are not references to reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 4 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. A redirect can be created if and when this term is mentioned in Radar. Sandstein 08:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derax[edit]

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

Article is little more than a dictionary definition for a historical term. Suggest delete and redirect to Radar. Page 85 of United States Army in World War II: The technical services states: "Derax was an early name for radio position finding , which the term radar was now , in 1942 , generally replacing " - Dumelow (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be a line in the main radar article. I had thought there was going to be a lot more use of the term but it died out very early in the radar era so it's not likely to be something that people will be looking up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:46, 3 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. Just. This is super tight but right now, based off the state of the article, I find the "delete" majority (as narrow as it is) to be more compelling. However, noting the comments in this discussion, this close does not prejudice re-creation at all (even less than normal), for a well-sourced article which demonstrates more notability than the deleted version does. If anyone wishes to undertake that task, and wants the article deleted and userfied, feel free to ask and I will happily oblige. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gringalet (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.

PROD removed because "I would be *extremely* cautious about WP:BEFORE for a 1950s Argentine film on the Anglophone internet, myself (deprodding)". Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the article?

In any case, when I did my BEFORE, I checked that article. There is a book listed that is just a "dictionary of Argentine films" and 2 "reviews" that have no citations, so I can't verify their authenticity. So, none of those satisfy WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the article?" As the deprodder, I can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt I did not mean this. As you were told in other AfDs regarding deprodded 1950s Argentine films, this is not something where you can realistically expect most or all references to be available on the English-speaking internet, regardless of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, you transcluded the AfD incorrectly, so I've fixed that for you. Hope that's fine.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the transclusion. As for my reasoning, I don't necessarily expect articles of this age to have reviews online, but even in the Spanish article the citations listed fail WP:NFILM. There is a book listed, which the "reviews" aren't attributed to (they are just there in the article with no book/newspaper attributed to them so that someone can verify if they had a copy of the book/newspaper). Anyone can question the notability of an article when it appears to fail inclusion guidelines, which I have. And, if anyone disagrees, that is why we have the discussion, so they can provide the proof of notability...whether in the discussion or adding to the article. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. We need reliable sources, which IMDb is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this seriously a thing? There is nothing technically notable about this other than it was a film. I get it that it's from the 1950's but there's still no context or anything explaining how notable this is (IMDb is NOT reliable since its content is user generated). Kline | vroom vroom 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious because I so often see this comment in AfDs (and I don't know that it is relevant here because this article doesn't have anything from IMDb)--have you tried to have something edited on IMDb in recent years? It may be "user-generated", but it is more reliable than Wikipedia. IMDb editors (not IMDb users) require attachments from high quality and often contemporary sources that spell things out exactly one way. This process takes days or weeks; changes aren't instantaneous, and often they are never made. There are some changes I'll never be able to get done, even with citations, because of the lofty standards IMDb pages have to meet. Maybe it wasn't always like that, but it is now. This "user-generated" business I read all the time. How many Wikipedia editors have tried to get changes made on IMDb? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an external link, I'm fine with that, but if it cites it, especially as the only source, it's gonna go. Have you read WP:IMDB?? Kline | vroom vroom 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The non-answer answers my question that you haven't directly, and I'll answer yours with "yes" and again that that does not apply to this article as it isn't cited here and I've added sourcing. So funny to see IMDb repeatedly brought up in discussions where IMDb isn't an issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no assertion that the article passes any WP:NFILM criteria, and the sourcing quite clearly fails the GNG. Several diligent searches have done nothing to change that, and so the article must be deleted. If there really are Spanish-language sources, then someone should be able to find them. But until then, we have nothing but speculation about notability, which cannot save the article. I'm glad to reëvaluate if new sources come to light. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure that the film existed but without any evidence of notability, we can't really justify keeping it. No deletion is irreversible so, if sources are ever found, this can always be restored. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets NFILM. Reviewed in Variety... in our very own language folks, yes. "Pictures: Gringalet." Variety (Archive: 1905-2000); Los Angeles Vol. 216, Iss. 8, (Oct 21, 1959): 23. Via Proquest. This and the reviews excerpted on the Spanish language WP article, which seem to come from: Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2001). Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) pág. 256/7. Buenos Aires, Editorial Corregidor. ISBN 950-05-0896-6, which is mentioned on many Argentine film articles, suffice. I echo the sentiments of the prod declined. Caution, care, thoroughness is important. It's best to look beyond the paywalls for films of this age--even U.S. films--Googling may be what is called for in BEFORE, but it causes Wikipedia to fall short of what it can be. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above such as Variety and Spanish sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus could be shifting per the last two !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak) The subject is a mainstream Argentinian production of 1959, but the film fails the fairly strict criteria of WP:NFILM. It could pass GNG based on the Variety review, but then NFILM would never have to be applied, and would be rendered defunct; I don't think that would work in general. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:21, 11 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 Deleted by User: Liz on G7 - one author article, originating author requested delete(non-admin closure) BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMaze[edit]

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

Some guy blocked me from uploading my original images, so the article is pretty much ruined. WikiLove Goat 🐐 16:58, 3 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rita Centura[edit]

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

Proposed deletion declined by paid editor. PROD'ed as "There is no coverage in independent, reliable sources. The subject's most notable exhibition is the Florence biennial, which is a pay-to-exhibit event. Does not come close to meeting the notability guidelines for artists, WP:ARTIST" those concerns remain. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate notability, just her own website & social media posts, which do not count towards notability. No museum collections nor in-depth critical, art-historical coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG and NARTIST fail. Possibly (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. There's also the UPE issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no secondary and reliable sources with significant coverage about the artist. And I didn't see any signs of complying with WP: ARTIST. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NARTST, GNG, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SNOW. I found zero hits on Google newspapers. She has no works in major collections or museums. She has fifty-one (51) followers on Twitter under @arcentura, and most of those are animal rights groups, not fans of her art. We are not a social media account or free web service, and in 2021, everyone knows that after our 20 years in existence. There seems to be unanimous accord to delete this page. I would need a lot to convince me to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 5 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 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. Daniel (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. V. Sheshadri[edit]

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

An Indian activist who served as the secretary of an Indian cultural organisation, never became its chief. No remarkable work done to merit an article on Wikipedia. Lacks significant coverage in third party media. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Walrus Ji (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:12, 24 January 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, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 move to → H. V. Seshadri

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 15:28, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetu Kamal[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. DaSoumiks (talk) 3 February 2021 (UTC) DasSoumik (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDose not have enough source. A non-notable actor Bapinghosh (talk) 4 February 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 4 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick Grammar School[edit]

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

The article is sourced only to the website for the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on indepdent sources, otherwise we will become just a lightly annotated directory of the internet. The previous deletion nomination was removed since this is a secondary school. However since then we have realized that having articles on every secondary school every in the world is just unsustainable, and that the once proposed limiting factor of only always including extant institutions would give us more presentist bias than we already have. Articles sourced only to the subject's own website should not stand for 12 year John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reason for deletion no longer stands -- article is no longer sourced only to the subject :) Secondary school notability is a relatively low bar, and it frankly wasn't difficult to find a bare minimum of referencing -- I suspect I could do quite a bit better if I really went at it. Article needs quite a bit of cleanup, as high school articles virtually always do, but that's not an AfD matter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the good reasons given by Vaticidalprophet. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since I closed the previous deletion discussion as 'keep' in 2011. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject of this article, a school, passes the guideline for notability of an organization, which is the applicable notability guideline for schools. The this school has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" and it is therefore notable enough to justify its own article. The sources are listed as references in the article: articles from the South Bourke and Mornington Journal, The Argus, and the Herald Sun. - tucoxn\^talk 14:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ideally there would be more sourcing, but the notability is there. StarM 15:26, 8 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. Daniel (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Joshi[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill local politician with no reliable and verifiable in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete council vice presidents in the 5th largest municipality in a state are not notable. Especially when they have less than 100,000 people and are the 16th largest city in their metro area. The opening wording is overly promotional and meant to over sell the importanace of the community Joshi is in the leadership of. The city where I grew up has roughly 30,000 more people than Edison, is without question the 3rd largest in its metro region and 4th in its state, yet since its mayors are ceremonial and just in reality members of the city council, we have deleted articles on them, even when they served as mayor for roughly 20 years and on the council longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal council is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists, and this is not citing enough coverage to deem Joshi as a special case of greater notability than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Niemeier[edit]

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

No 3rd-party sources about his life and/or work found. Only claims to notability are a finalist nomination for a Campbell/Astounding award and a minor fan award, both of which he possibly got through politically motivated vote canvassing. While it’s true only a few people become Campbell/Astounding finalists per year, this doesn’t mean much if they immediately sink back into complete obscurity. Dronebogus (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the level of 3rd-party sourcing we would need for it to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has multiple third-party, reliable sources. The Dragon Award is hardly a "minor fan award" as it has received extensive coverage all over the world. As for the Campbell Award, a person is only eligible for a couple years for it, and a fair number of those people "sink back into complete obscurity" and never have a significant career following their nomination for or winning of that award. The third-party sources used in the article are well-established as reliable: Internet Speculative Fiction Database, The Verge, the official Hugo Awards site, and File 770, which keeps quoting him and discussing him, even today, years after he won the Dragon Award. They more than establish the notability of the subject. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't expire. There are some awards for which 'being a finalist' is, in and of itself, an assertion of notability. DS (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nihonjoe and DS (re. "notability is not temporary"). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see coverage on more than just those awards, and also, does he even pass WP:AUTHOR? ~EdGl talk 21:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EdGl: WP:AUTHOR is only there for cases where the subject has difficulty passing WP:GNG, which this person has. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 3 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 Guess Who. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Peterson[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Despite the subject being a part of two notable bands, there is nothing written about the subject that cannot be addressed in one of t he two band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notice is too connected with the musical group he was a part of to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guess Who. Walter has recently nominated several articles on various members of The Guess Who, and Garry Peterson is actually one of the more deserving candidates for his own article because he has been there since the classic years, was inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, and has won some high Canadian awards. However, those facts are already mentioned at the band's article and Peterson's achievements are entirely within the context of the band. His brief stint with Bachman–Turner Overdrive is already covered sufficiently at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I concur with Doomsdayer520 that not enough for own page, but notable enough for people to come looking and a redirect to the necessary info is on The Guess Who page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guess Who. Our core readership, especially younger people, might have heard of him and not connect him to the Guess Who, or might not understand how influential that band was. Please redirect it. For the Gen Zers. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regent International College, Gampaha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, is solely reliant on primary sources. Was previously de-prodded without any improvement on the basis that it was a "secondary school" irrespective of the fact that it lacked any secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NBUILD, no SIGCOV from IS RS with direct and indepth coverage. Source in article is not an IS. BEFORE showed nothing. // Timothy :: talk 18:05, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gixxer kart[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, was dePROD'd in 2017. No references since 2008 and seems to be mostly WP:OR. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can see no evidence that this subject is covered sufficently to meet the notability criteria.
SSSB (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find sufficient WP:RS to show that this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Nightfury 08:32, 10 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. I find Bearian's comments the most persuasive in line with policy. Daniel (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'aynei Hayeshua Movement[edit]

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

No search results unrelated to Wikipedia whatsoever; relies on a single dead link that is not captured by the Internet Archive. The former title of the article, "The Ma'aynei Hayeshua Kiruv Movement", has a passing mention at the Jewish Press, but otherwise returns only some social media accounts when searched. A non-notable organisation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a search in hebrew pulled up quite a few results. The article certainly needs work and references but I wouldn't support deleting it--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written as if it were the organisation's own website. Number 5 7 10:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:SOAP. I looked on Google and found zero news articles, zero books, and zero newspaper articles. The only evidence of existence that I could find are two (2) letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post. The page as it stands is is equal parts free web host and soapbox. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per the reasons stated by Steamboat2020. Ibn Daud (talk) 20:06, 5 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 merge to Equal Education. Daniel (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Education: Past Campaigns[edit]

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

Related to the Equal Education article. A promotional article that also needs to be axed. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:39, 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. 11:39, 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. 11:39, 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. 11:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Equal Education, as there is a template message on the article saying that. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 3 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. Not relisting a third time... Daniel (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lokal App[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. News about a company received funding does not have any encyclopedic value. Fobes article about the company are sponsored content. RationalPuff (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t know what to say, but the first nomination was resulted as “no consensus”. -Cupper52^Discuss! 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article content is improved with more resources. The forbes article is not sponsored it is an award. Coverage from India Times, Inc., Economictimes and TechCrunch already available in the article demonstrates compliance with WP:NCORP - (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 3 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. I do not find the promotional element persuasive, but HighKing's comments about the policy re: sourcing are the strongest argument posed in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totem Acoustic[edit]

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

Absolutely promotional and poorly sourced. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I do agree that it seems to have become a highly spammy article, but I believe that the brand is well-enough known and there are sufficient sources (notably the reviews linked in the product section) to attest to its notability. I suggest that it be reverted to the least spammy version and edited where necessary. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about the company, not any of the products. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Garst[edit]

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

The only source for the article is the webpage of the company he was in charge of. This is not enough sourcing to show anyone is notable. A search found brief mentions of lots of other David Garst's on places like LinkedIn and in Find a Grave, but nothing adding up to passing GNG for either this individual or anyone else with this name. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. His advisory position in the Jimmy Carter administration is not significant enough to pass WP:NPOL automatically. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Would appreciate your taking a second look in light of the sources presented below. Best, Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Garst_Seed_Company: Keep: There is a bunch of mentioning of Garst in the periodicals of the past, see here [[14]]. Most of the mentioning are in conjunction with the aforementioned company, so merging sounds like a good solution to me. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolma8: Would appreciate your taking a second look in light of the sources presented below. Best, Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me. Kolma8 (talk) 17:24, 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 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG. According to (1) this, he played a significant role in opening agricultural trade between the United States and the Eastern Bloc. He was also a major figure in Democratic politics in Iowa. Not sure how much WP:BEFORE was undertaken, but a Newspapers.com search turns up more than 1,600 hits. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, e.g., (2) "Ex-Garst Seed president dies; he 'fed the world'", The Des Moines Register, 1/11/06; (3) "Tribute (to David Garst)", Lincoln Journal Star, 1/23/06; (4) "A lifetime of selling seeds", The Des Moines Register, 2/4/90 (part 1/part 2), (5) David Garsts, Coon Rapids, See Road to Peace in Exchange Visits", Carroll Daily Times Herald, 7/9/56; (6) "Famed Corn Man Garst Coming Here", The Spokesman-Review, 1/7/63; (7) "Sons relive historic meeting", The Des Moines Register, 2/5/95; (8) "It's second generation reunion as Krushchev visits Garst", Sioux City Journal, 2/6/95; (9) "Garst Seed sets collision course with former pal", The Des Moines Register, 8/21/83; (10) "Garst finds hope in Soviets' latest change in farming policy", The Lincoln Star, 10/20/88; and (11) "Former Garst Seed president David Garst dies", The Courier (AP obit), 1/11/06. He also published on policy topics, including (12) "What Farmers Want" by David Garst, Agricultural History, Spring 1990. Finally, (13) Garst's papers are preserved for historical research at a major research university (Iowa State). Cbl62 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been added to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl, seems to meet GNG. Nice work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://ucanr.edu/sites/sbc/files/227892.pdf He was well thought of in his field. Ample coverage already found proving he was notable. Dream Focus 02:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 5 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) 01:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Munir Cheema[edit]

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

utter promotional nonsense about a guy who fails WP:NPOL as a minor local politician. I can find 0 sources in Urdu or English, much less sources that actually cover him. CUPIDICAE💕 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, minor local politician who fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Why WP:A7 and WP:G1 were declined is beyond me. --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he is as far as I can tell the top government official in a place with over 200,000 people. If we were talking about a place this size in the US, this would absolutely be dragged through AfD, not speedied in any way. If this person were connected with New Jersey, Louisiana or Dedham, Massachusetts, it would be a long drawn out fight and it might well be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a local level politician and we do not have the level of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 5 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. Agree that the alternate prior history article would struggle to survive also. Daniel (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shuftipro[edit]

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

paid for non notable spam sourced to non-rs and regurgitated press releases masquerading as journalism. CUPIDICAE💕 12:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking at the history, it looks like the article was originally for a Canadian landscaping company called The Sod Boys LTD ([15]) before Nic Lizven hijacked it. There seems to be an identical draft version of the article by Nic Lizven here CiphriusKane (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked for Swedish sources. The Swedish branch appears to be a small comapany with no media presence. It was founded in late 2019 and there is as yet no yearly report. If it was only a Swedish company I would !vote delete in a second, but branches in other countries might make it notable. The mentions in the sources now in the article are a bit too insignificant to show strong notability. Sjö (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and move to The Sod Boys and reprimand User:Nic Lizven for hijacking an existing article. JIP | Talk 11:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Sod Boys isn't notable either, so I'd nominate that as well. It's pointless. CUPIDICAE💕 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've blocked the creator for spamming. The draft isn't worth saving. MER-C 15:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 10 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 Philip Bloom (businessman). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stein Jr.[edit]

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

Suggest delete and redirect to Philip Bloom (businessman) who seems to be the originator of the conspiracy. Not seeing significant coverage of Stein as an individual to substantiate notability. For reference, another participant was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brian Wheeler - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip Bloom (businessman), not independently notable, no SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I guess, per nom. I'd prefer one article on the conspiracy itself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:57, 10 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) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Penev[edit]

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

Played 46 mins at professional level ten years ago but otherwise has played in the lower tiers in Bulgaria. A Bulgarian search does not yield much about this particular Ivan Penev. Coverage found is an announcement that he got released, another announcement about the same thing, an announcement that he's back from injury and a name check. He also gets the odd name check in match reports. This is not WP:GNG level coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. Giant Snowman 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New religious movements and right-wing politics[edit]

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

I was unable to find any sources discussing new religious movements and right wing politics in general. I'd say it is a bit too much WP:SYNTH to list some groups if no one else has done so. These aren't political cults as such. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both "new religious movement" and "right-wing" are hard to define. Listing a few examples seems kind of arbitrary. PopSci (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)d[reply]

Delete It doesn't make sense for a few select examples to be on what essentially is somewhat of a list, then have a few sentences of information for each example, especially when every movement in the article has their own individual article. PastramiSandwich4456 (talk) 8:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravevx[edit]

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

Can't find evidence of passing WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG; coverage limited to self-published sources and record labels that he has been on the books of. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-reliable sources. Vanity article. Most likely UPE/COI spam. RationalPuff (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded from the talk page of this AfD:

"Respected Wikipedia,

This is Aaron D'souza from Oman(gulf),

i been a big fan of Ravevx, attended 2 concerts of ravevx held in india, thought he deserves a wikipedia page.

ravevx is listed on some top webites such as IMDb, TMDb, Moviefit, edm.fandom, set.fm, Spinnin Records,etc.

Ravevx is also registered as an official author on GoodReads.

he has biographies on many website so i thought to add him in wikipedia too. He has a Celebrity Google Knowledge Panel too.

i Kindly Request Wikipedia to not delete the article.

Thanks,

Aaron D'souza"

Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, none of those sources even come close to establishing notability. Sorry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 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 Withdraw per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jealousy in art[edit]

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

Not a single source in sight. Seems to be built entirely on WP:OR and example-farming of artists who do not appear to be notable in their own right. If there's a salvageable topic here, then WP:TNT is needed; otherwise, this does not seem to be a noteworthy juncture of topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some to Jealousy#In fiction, film, and art. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question." And can we have TPH topic banned from deletion activity again, please. @Ritchie333:. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, a worthwhile break-out stand-alone topic, a good addition to the overall topic and the Category:Jealousy, and erroneous mention in the nom that the artists mentioned are non-notable (most are very notable major artists). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in-article sourcing could be improved, but a quick scan of art literature identifies that this is a theme that is discussed. Will try to work on that during this AfD, but it's fine as-is to stand. StarM 15:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the links in the visual arts section. The redlinks may have given the nominator the idea that they're not notable, but they simply weren't linked correctly. I have no doubt that the artists, and even some of the individual works, are notable. I'm not convinced that a painting like Jalousie ou le singe is itself notable for example. However, the lack of any sources is a problem. The whole article, but the visual arts section in particular is original research. Vexations (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am bewildered by the nomination. "Not a single source in sight"? At the time that TenPoundHammer made the nomination there were two sources cited. There may well be a case for thinking two were not enough, but that is not remotely the same thing as there not being a single source cited. "artists who do not appear to be notable in their own right"? Ariosto, Shakespeare, Hoffmann, Charlotte Brontë, Trollope, Tolstoy, Proust, Albrecht Dürer, Ingres, Edvard Munch "not ... notable in their own right"????? I really can't believe that TenPoundHammer really believes that all of those are not notable (even if he has not heard of all of them), so I can only conclude that either, as Andrew Davidson suggests, he "has not even read the page in question", or else he doesn't care, and will say anything to try to get an article deleted if he doesn't like it, without caring whether it's true or not. In either of those cases he should not have made the nomination. JBW (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Despite what I have said about the disruptive nomination, I am not at all keen on articles such as this, which basically take a collection of odd examples and artificially make a topic out of them. I agree with Vexations, who did not explicitly say either "keep" or "delete", though the logic of their position ("The whole article ... is original research") should mean "delete". However, I am unwilling to lend my support to such a grossly inappropriate nomination, so I have to remain neutral. JBW (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JBW, I think the subject may be notable, but the article violates our NOR policy. I am very reluctant to support such a flawed nomination. When I look for articles titled (something) in art, I notice that many are redirects to the main topics. See [16] I think redirecting to Jealousy and having a properly sourced section, or several sections, there dedicated to representations of jealousy is both feasible and appropriate. Redirect. Vexations (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think there's a difference between a notable topic and an article's content. I think, should this survive, much of the article would need to be re-written, as you noted. Whether AfD should be for cleanup or not, it often is as people see an endangered article and step in to address the content. Giving TPH the benefit of the doubt, he may have just been working through a backlog since the article is still tagged unsourced despite having two sources at the time of the nom (and more added since). StarM 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for the new cited sources... Both subject and the article is notable... --Kemalcan (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/arts/spare-times-for-oct-16-22.html The latest installment is this discussion about the history of jealousy in art and pop culture. This is a topic discussed in places it seems. Does anyone know of any college textbooks about art that discuss this? Dream Focus 13:56, 4 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Lozano Dumler[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER ("one of the first Puerto Rican women to become a United States Army officer" isn't notable} and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the references are dead links with bare URLS, the only substantive story in RS is the Chicago Sun-Times [17], which appears to have been copied and mirrored Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why am I not surprised about this nomination which is based on an essay and not on an actual Wikipedia policy? This is supposedly an encyclopedia where editors are to share their knowledge about others with the world regardless of their color, race or place of origin. Being the "first" in my book is notable and letting the rest of the world know is sharing ones knowledge which is what Wikipedia is all about regardless of what an essay may state. Everybody here knows that some sources which were placed on articles written years ago may no longer exist and that it is a question of doing some research and citing the newly found sources. According to Marilla Cushman of the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation:

“She is certainly a pioneer for Puerto Rican women, one of the first 13 to be commissioned into the Army Nurse Corps. Carmen and her 12 cohorts led the way for Puerto Rican women in the Army Nurse Corps. Tony the Marine (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable about her career. She could be a name in a list of people from the island that did something in the war/army. Also rather America-centric, not much notability to an international audience. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The key issue is passing GNG, and she clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "One of the first" is not good enough, and it shows in the weak sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have fixed the Chicago Sun-Times link and added information from a link to the US Department of Veterans Affairs that specifically honors her and provides fact-checked information about her biography and reasons why she was distinctly important to the military during WWII. Per WP:SOLDIER, there does appear to be "enough information in reliable sources to include details about [her] birth, personal life, education and military career," and the notice she has earned from the US military and independent, reliable secondary sources supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also added a US DOD source that recognizes "Second Lieutenant Carmen Lozano Dumler was one of the first Puerto Rican women to become a US Army officer," which shows notice (and notability) from the US military for this fact. Beccaynr (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Beccaynr. Seems well sourced now. Pladica (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage, meets wikipedia notability. Antonio The Notable Dork Martin (si?) 22:28, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
- @AntonioMartin: (OT) Did you see User talk:AntonioMartin#Timestamps? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Alan..yeah but I don't understand how to use that...personally I think timing the comments is rather silly but I do it because everyone else does. I figured I am 8 hours behind the British, and UTC is based on the Greenwich line...I mean it is, right?? Can you show me an example of how to do the five tildes and etc.? Much obliged! God bless you! Antonio Not in Greenwich Martin (orale!) 07:40, 8 February, 2021 (UTC)
Keep - There are a lot of soldiers in the history of the U.S. military but somehow Carmen Lozano Dumler is one of those featured in material by the Department of Defense when showcasing hispanics in the military so there's no doubt she's notable. I added the source for this statement.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Eloquent Peasant (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source inaccurately states that "Second Lieutenant Carmen Maria Lozano Dumler, becomes the first Puerto Rican woman to become a United States Army officer." She wasn't the first, she was one of the first. If they can't get that right its not reliable. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the Chicago Sun-Times, ""The Army did not recruit women on the island until 1944," said retired Lt. Col. Marilla Cushman, a spokeswoman for the [Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation]. "Mrs. Dumler was the first on the island to be sworn in."" My read on this is that even as the exact first, she is also 'one of the first' due to getting sworn in with a small group. Beccaynr (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "she was the first sworn in" it doesn't make it clear if it was a matter of minutes or months until the second was sworn in. There is no guideline or policy that says that being first is notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources repeatedly note this accomplishment (in addition to other aspects of her service), which objectively makes it notable, at minimum per WP:BASIC, and also per the WP:SOLDIER essay due to her important service in WW2 as well as her prominent role in military celebrations of diversity since then. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC) And the Chicago Sun-Times says, "She was the first sworn in out of a group of 13 trailblazing nurses in Puerto Rico recruited to care for the growing number of Puerto Rican soldiers at military hospitals in San Juan and the Caribbean, according to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation," which sounds like it was a group event. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is "this accomplishment"? What makes her any more notable than any of the other 12 female Puerto Rican officers? On WP notability isn't based on what someone does its based on the coverage of what they did, that is why GNG requires SIGCOV in multiple RS and the sources provided just don't meet that standard. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and per WP:HEY, citations have been clarified, sources added, and the secondary commentary from multiple independent and reliable sources seems clear. And it is the coverage in the sources that objectively distinguishes Lozano Dumler as specifically notable per Wikipedia policy. I don't think we need to debate why the military has chosen to elevate her in its extensive efforts to celebrate diversity, because multiple independent and reliable sources demonstrate that it has. Beccaynr (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what BASIC and HEY state. You were arguing that her "accomplishment" made her notable then you changed tack and argue that multiple sources are there. In my view the sources still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS as shown by the factual confusion of the example you first gave. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to address your concern about RS by discussing, with sources, how someone can be both the first sworn in while also being one of the first within a group. I don't think there is confusion about this that undermines the reliability of any of the sources. I also have been trying to address what seems like subjective questions of notability by stating that I think we are guided by the multiple independent and reliable sources to objectively make that assessment. It is changing tack to my understanding of Wikipedia policy, as noted in the essay " Subjective importance," "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information," which seems to be met in multiple independent RS that discuss Lozano Dumler as the first or one of the first Puerto Rican women to become a U.S. Army officer, and as one of the first Puerto Rican nurses in the Army, and as an interpreter and bilingual support, which was recognized by multiple independent RS as important to the care of injured troops. In addition, the U.S. military has diversity initiatives that feature Lozano Dumler, which further verifies her past notability and contributes to additional notability for serving as a modern inspiration. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's true that there are some mentions of her being "one of the first..." but from mere presentation of this fact it isn't clear that it makes the subject of the article notable. The weight is on the fact that at some point Puerto Rican women started becoming officers but that isn't inherited by each individual member of the first class of officers. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I was looking at this earlier but held off commenting as wasn't sure. Leaning keep. I can see and understand the other points of view, but I think it's a well written article, and well sourced. It demonstrates notability for the most part.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "...first Puerto Rican women to become a United States Army officer." Seems important to me.

Except she was only "one of the first" and its importance depends on her having SIGCOV in multiple RS which doesn't exist. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also think there is notability per WP:ANYBIO, due to the honors Lozano Dumler has received from the military that have been added to the article, including being featured in multiple Hispanic Heritage Month publications. A subjective argument that "one of the first" is not notable seems like a strawperson, because this is not the only source of her notability; multiple independent and reliable sources have taken notice of her career, and she has been repeatedly honored for her service, not simply being "one of the first." Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic Toys (film series)[edit]

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

No sources cited. Fails Notability standards Jenyire2 08:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 08:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needed a complete overhaul and could still use a massive amount of work, but there are enough sources to establish notability for the series as a whole. The general rule of thumb with film series (and books) is that there should be a series article if the individual films are notable or if there's enough coverage for the combined films to justify an article. With the latter, the idea is that the series page can serve as a landing page of sorts for the individual films if any of them were to not be independently notable - thus preventing recreation of potentially non-notable or unreleased films until sourcing becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film series is covered by multiple horror sites such as Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central, and per ReaderofthePack's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per the rationale and improvements to the article from ReaderofthePack. There are enough sources to demonstrate the series' notability, and sourced content has been added, so its just a matter of further article improvement. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again it needs to be pointed out that "article is bad" is not a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved including multiple references showing substantial coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kiawe Bridge[edit]

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

This is a one sentence stub with an infobox that has languished since it was created in 2009 by an author who was later blocked for sockpuppeting and has the dubious honor of having most of their work PRODED or AfDed. The one "reference" that is provided appears to be completely erroneous. Most of the content in the infobox appears completely made-up. According to The King's African Rifles there was a very minor engagement at the bridge in question in April 1917 (three months before the article says it happened) that led to the British seizing it. As per that source, which is a good one, the commanders names listed here are completely wrong and the numbers of the forces involved is way off. The "battle" hardly appears notable in anyway and this article should either be deleted or merged into East African campaign (World War I). Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any SIGCOV in multiple RS so fails WP:GNG, it may even be a WP:HOAX given creator's history. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm haven't found anything either, can't find anything on the commanders either. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would support a merge to the main East African WW1 campaign article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another horrible relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:25, 5 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 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. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Quality[edit]

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

Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can barely find any coverage outside of company lists.Unspectrogram (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Beauty[edit]

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

Current sources doesn't satisfy WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for spam sourced to non-rs, blatant PR and blackhat SEO. CUPIDICAE💕 12:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy PR article. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now improved with many sources. Some of the sources are listed below.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mira-beauty-raises-9m-unilever-143136981.html

https://wwd.com/beauty-industry-news/beauty-features/digital-download-mira-silicon-valley-beauty-search-engine-1203344476/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/yolarobert1/2019/12/04/meet-mira-the-app-intersecting-beauty-and-artificial-intelligence/

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/mira-google-beauty-world-085523159.html

https://www.morningbrew.com/retail/stories/2020/09/04/celebrities-cant-stop-wont-stop-launching-beauty-brands

https://www.glossy.co/beauty/are-online-reviews-the-way-to-unlock-product-discovery-digitally/

https://verygoodlight.com/2020/08/14/mira-app/

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/asktheexperts/article_bad209d6-e971-11ea-8069-bf43fcf798fd.html

https://wwd.com/beauty-industry-news/beauty-features/coronavirus-salon-workers-beauty-freelancers-job-less-1203544741/

https://www.cew.org/beauty_news/beauty-has-its-own-search-engine-mira/

https://www.beautypackaging.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2019-10-17/first-to-market-beauty-search-engine-debuts/ Piermoire (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that this is paid-for spam. MER-C 14:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. It doesn't help either that other users have been spamming the site link either. Pahunkat (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, no echo-chamber faux-news, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 9 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. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muskogee home shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. There is no indication that this is a notable event whatsoever. There have been a multitude of familicides involving multiple victims, even during this pandemic, and the article seems like standard reporting of this sort of event more than anything else. Nothing about this incident stands out. Love of Corey (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Seems more than a run of the mill home shooting, five children dead in a single shooting is pretty notable, it is receiving coverage even here in the UK. Article needs improving rather than deleting. Inexpiable (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK source? Love of Corey (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma: Man and five small children shot dead at US home Sky News
Oklahoma mass shooting: Six killed including five children The Independent Inexpiable (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source gives anything new and pretty much just summarizes what the U.S. sources give. Love of Corey (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a premature nomination for an event shaping up in a decidedly notable direction. This is frankly a little ghoulish -- it was less than a day ago. "Neither of the UK sources give new information" is a strange objection, considering the relevance of them to this discussion is "this topic has coverage throughout the Anglosphere", not "these are brand new sources with completely different information". Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, sources shouldn't just regurgitate different versions of the same information, though. ~~WP:MILL and~~ WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't constitute WP:MILL, because run-of-the-mill murders in Oklahoma aren't reported in London. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's been stricken. But WP:EVENTCRITERIA still applies. "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Love of Corey (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A google search of "muskogee shooting 2021" showed just dozens of US national media outlets (RS) including CNN, CBS, NBC, NY Times, USA Today, & AP News. Even though the article doesn't list them, it 100% passed the RS needed mark. The article also does pass Wikipedia minimum death of 4. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I do not believe it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, however, it should be mentioned/merged into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now — Doesn't seem like just another shooting. We should wait and see as more details become available. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 13:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - I would now like to withdraw this AfD. Though the sources do not indicate this, my own personal research on the history of mass shootings in Oklahoma indicates this incident could be the deadliest in the state since the Edmond post office shooting nearly 35 years ago. Plus, this is obviously the deadliest mass shooting in the history of Muskogee, a city with a population of a little under 40,000 people, not your average Oklahoma City or Tulsa. That's a double-whammy right there. Love of Corey (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:45, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Onses[edit]

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

not notable as scientist, businessman or politican. The corresponding article has been been deleted from the French WP [18] DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meeting our notability criteria in any of his endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:NPOL as a losing candidate. His role as a VP in a NASDAQ-traded company is classic WP:MILL: there are thousands of such business persons. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to clear WP:GNG on his sources: businesspeople are not automatically notable just because they exist, writers are not automatically notable just because their writing technically metaverifies its own existence, unsuccessful political candidates are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify their vote totals, and on and so forth. The article is not well-sourced, and nothing stated in the article body hands him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New Era (WWE)[edit]

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

Out of the 24 sources on this article, only one uses the phrase "New Era" (and it's a primary source, which should be avoided). This article appears to largely be a WP:SYNTH collection of links used to back up a marketing catchphrase.

See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Secondary_sources_for_notability: Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. and, similarly, Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep.

The notability of this bit of WWE branding is not established anywhere, and the article has largely been cobbled together to justify one of WWE's buzzwords, one which hasn't been used in about 5 years.

Again, fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Term is used in multiple reliable secondary sources. A quick search found: WrestleView, a book from Simon & Schuster, ESPN, The Post and Courier, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, Philly Voice, CBS (again), a CBS affiliate, Fox Sports, Pro Wrestling Torch, and Figure Four/Wrestling Observer. Please perform WP:BEFORE search before nominating articles covered in so many reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus The Boston Globe 12/29/16 (John Cena: "I'm sick of this New Era B.S. It ain't the New Era. It's the My Time Is Now Era."), The Montgomery Advertiser 7/21/16 ("WWE Begins New Era with some Unexpected Victories"), The Montgomery Advertiser 5/29/16 ("This bold move will have major ramifications for all of WWE and exemplify the New Era..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles keep coming back to AfD but they aren't getting deleted. There's a reason for that. The article is in horrible shape, the fanpage tag is there for a good reason, but those aren't grounds for deletion. Gary's responses prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gary gave several sources covering the New Era. I don't like the idea, since looks more like a promotional effort from WWE, but several sources prove the notability. Maybe, it's like PG Era, needs a lot of work. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there really is no substantial coverage of this alleged period of time. There's nothing to define this era. The prose currently in the article is either information that can be expanded upon within their own separate articles which already correctly exist (reception of Reigns, women's revolution, brand split), or expanded upon in the History of WWE article. ItsKesha (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is sufficiently notable and well-sourced and coverage per WP:RS, arguably the most prominent thing in the wrestling world today and should not be deleted based on personal views and WP:OR of individual editors. The new era that begun in 2016, is mentioned in multiple WP:PW/RS and many other mainstream accepted WP:RS including WWE themselves {even if you discount that as primary there are plenty more}: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and many other WP:PW/RS and other main stream WP:RS, I could go on and on. So please do not delete it based on the personal views of individual editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable" - None of the above sources contain any in-depth coverage, merely reporting and conjecture. 2) "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" - almost all the above sources are from the same two month period. 3) "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - this is definitely not true of this period of time. Also misses the criteria for WP:CFORK and WP:NTEMP, and is definitely WP:SYNTH judging by the proposed sources. ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted, it seems to be a largely made up "era". Actually just a part of the history of WWE and there is a section in the main article called "Second brand split (2016–present)" which is surely sufficient. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SYNTH is a bogus claim. WWE has stated that the era exists, and many secondary sources have accepted this. Reporting what happens during an era is not synthesis. I've seen arguments in this string of era AfDs about "only sources that specifically use the phrasing "x era" can be used for this article. That's obviously untrue. The big events from 2016-present are fair game, as they fall within the era. To draw a parallel, if a policy or program was put forward during an era in American politics (New Deal, Great Society, etc.--or even the Great Depression, for that matter), it could be included because it falls within the era. To say that the source would need to specifically state "x was a policy enacted during the y era" makes no sense. WP:GNG has been met easily by the sources provided. There is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources. Even the ones mentioned above need to be considered, as an AfD is about potential, not just current state. WP:CFORK does not apply, as there is enough information to split off an article (we wouldn't say that the Great Society era should just be part of a "History of the United States" article). WP:NTEMP says the opposite of what ItsKesha believes it does. Notability, once established (as it was by the in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources) does not disappear--if it was notable then, it's notable now. Being a catchphrase/marketing strategy has nothing to do with notability. WP:GNG determines notability. As an example, see the Afd for Where's Herb?, a notoriously bad marketing campaign for Burger King. It was determined that there was enough in the sources for a separate article (which was subsequently expanded and passed a GA review). Marketing campaigns can be notable--even if it's for a "made up era". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However we already have a WWE article and a History of WWE article. Also having articles on short made-up marketing "eras" of WWE seems to me to be excessive. Per WP:N "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." In my view this topic should be merged in History of WWE (which in fact it already is). Nigej (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion of deletion of these articles shows why exactly it too should not be deleted [27] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reality Era. The New Era covers many significant periods like women's revolution (should have also been enlisted in articles related to feminism category for deletion), Wednesday Night Wars, just like Monday Night Wars in the Attitude Era, 2nd brand split and the impact of the covid pandemic just to name a few. It is a very significant period and covered across numerous WP:RS and WP:PW/RS and thus should stay. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, we are allowed to combine articles. The fact that the article is only a little larger than the section at History of WWE persuades me that we don't need a separate article. Nigej (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a merger based on your single opinion. The History of WWE article summarizes the most important factors of each era 1953-2021, ongoing, but the prominent eras like these merit their own "main article" to include more information that would make the History of WWE article too long to add on its own page. These seperate articles liek this and Attitude Era article and all gives more details and add value to WP:PW. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GaryColemanFan. I don't see how after all that has been said this could be considered SYNTH. Also: all of the 'eras' are topics of high importance in the scope of this project. Possibly, content should be moved from primary article to each 'era' main article (to unburden the primary article), but it can't be convincingly argued that a separate article isn't needed now, when it's counter to established norm. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:29, 11 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. There were some calls for keeping all or some of the article, possibly via a merge or draft, but the "History"-section of Healdsburg, California already contains the verified historical landmarks in the city leaving nothing more to merge from this article. Since Healdsburg is a small city with only a small number of historic landmarks it would be easier to expand that section than trying to rescue this article via the draft namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California[edit]

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

As discussed at User talk:MikeVdP, this list-article is not adequately supported. I propose that it be deleted outright, or moved to Draftspace. A list-article on the topic of historic sites designated by the city/town of Healdsburg, and also including any historic sites within Healdsburg that have been designated by higher-level governments, would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if adequate sourcing were provided. For example, newspaper articles, and especially some sources establishing what is the correct proper noun name for Healdsburg's official designations. So far, here, there is documentation somewhat supporting fact of potential historic sites being surveyed (often a preliminary step to historic designations) but there is not outright coverage of the topic as would meet requirements of WP:LISTN. The creating editor has a big workload already to address sourcing and other problems of other list-articles, and has been cooperating, but this one has lagged and would best be removed from mainspace. Doncram (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR – A short cut and edit and paste into the city article will work nicely. And then we can close this AfD with no further ado. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Including the table in the article on the City would be fine. It can be found and used. Since there are so few items, this could be good. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, there is nothing to merge. And a point of this AFD is have the article creator hear from other editors, not just from me, that they cannot put unsupported material into Wikipedia mainspace. Note, there is already statement in the Healdsburg article that "The Healdsburg Carnegie Library, now the Healdsburg Museum, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as is the Healdsburg Memorial Bridge," and there is no other useable content. The article creator is suggesting that a table in the edit history of the article (deleted by me from the article), that is not supported by sources, would be put into the Healdsburg article. And "List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California" is not a plausible text string that a reader looking for "Healdsburg" would accidentally type into a Wikipedia search bar. I now support outright deletion more strongly, rather than moving to Draftspace. If the article creator would agree to develop in Draftspace, then that would be okay by me and I would even help there. But so far they are not seeing the need to work in draftspace, and are suggesting they will make what amounts to an end-run around Wikipedia requirements, by putting it into Healdsburg article instead. Think of it: could every AFD be ended, by moving offending (unsupported) material to a different article? --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 19:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I further realize some or all of the Healdsburg items may also be included in a different list-article, that also needs to be deleted IMO, per other discussion at creator's Talk page. ~~Expect to open AFD for that soon.~~ See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 00:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are some sources, but they are not in the article and might not be significant coverage. If someone wants to draftify it and work on it, go ahead. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But that link goes just to a compilation of Wikipedia links/materials (invalid for Wikipedia to cite). --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support the move to draft space if quality sources can be found and incorporated. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Draftify per Doncram. desmay (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

retain

The heart of the concerns about this article seemed to be that eight of the Designated Historic Buildings were documented only by their inclusions on two lists officially published by the City of Healdsburg. After much digging, the individual City Ordinances have been identified and referenced. See the talk page for the article. The City of Healdsburg is an official, incorporated city. It has a long 19th century heritage. It has established and renewed its historical preservation work. The buildings have been formally assigned recognition by the City Council. The list article seems like a good one.MikeVdP (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doncram's arguments for delete, and only for delete (not merge / return to draft) — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:19, 11 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCOP formalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has barely been edited since the last discussion three years ago, and none of the edits are substantial. I am torn as to whether this is legitimate physics, as the way it is presented has a fringey odor. I see little sign, however, that it is a notable idea. First, searching for SCOP formalism produces tons of false hits, because there is another idea with the same name: Spherical Complex Optical Potential formalism, which I gather has something to do with analysing biomolecular structures. Looking for "State Context Property" formalism gets rid of about 60% of the GScholar hits, and while the original 2002 paper was oft-cited, interest has waned rapidly, and citations of later papers never gets out of the single digits. Someone else will have to speak to the quality of the various journals involved, but I personally do not get a good feeling about this article. If kept it would need to be renamed for clarity, as it's clear enough that the other use of "SCOP" is more common. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination just seems to amount to vague feelings of unease but AfD is not cleanup. The topic has attracted sustained interest – papers such as The state context property formalism: from concept theory to the semantics of music and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the nomination is that sources are mostly that of a main author indicating a lack of notability. I could verify that one independent source mentions it, the Busemeyer one. Among others that don't seem to be by Aerts there seem to be two more, I couldn't verify both but one is used for WP:SYNTHesis. If you find other such sources it may be the time to list or add them to the article, demonstrating the formalism has been used and discussed by more people. —Paleo Neonate – 05:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other author of that, Bruza, has collaborated with Aerts (for example here), making that a bit too close to count as fully independent. I'd call it WP:PRIMARY. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely a promotion of Diederik Aerts, pushing an idea that has not been adequately surveyed by secondary or tertiary sources in a way that would establish its noteworthiness. All the citations in the article are to Aerts or a coauthor (the first author on the paper linked above is Aerts' postdoc). XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @XOR'easter: is there a reason that deletion is preferable to redirection to Aerts bio? Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's more than one meaning for "SCOP formalism". Actually, the other meaning mentioned in the nomination (Spherical Complex Optical Potential) seems more common. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline fringe theory, that nobody but the main author and his students care about it. Tercer (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this isn't fringe theory/pseudoscience then it's awfully close to it. The key issue for AfD is simply that there seems to be no genuine, independent, secondary sourcing, so we have little or no evidence of Notability. I wouldn't specially oppose delete and redirect to Diederik Aerts, though that article has recently been extensively edited by an SPA and 61 of its 70 sources are also primary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diederik Aerts. No particular reason this couldn't have been done without AfD except that it previously went through the ringer. I have no objections to preserve history. jps (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of noteworthiness in secondary sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough secondary coverge to warrant it's own article. Maybe just add/merge a few sentances to Diederik Aerts. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:44, 7 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 merge to November 2010 California elections. Daniel (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 La Mesa, California mayoral election[edit]

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

Non-notable mayoral election in a small suburb of San Diego. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. There is routine mill coverage all local elections have in a major media market, but nothing that demonstrates notability. The election was purely about local issues that do not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw the same in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 La Mesa, California mayoral election. –Cupper52^Discuss!
Merge to November 2010 California elections, which should have a section on local elections, linking to the ones with their own pages. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to November 2010 California elections as per above. Pilean (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Pilean and Elliot321:, November 2010 California elections is about state-wide elections. There is no page for the Mayor of La Mesa (not notable) and I don't think merging the content into La Mesa would be a good fit. Do you have a location for a merge that you believe the content would fit well in? // Timothy :: talk 12:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elliot321. First merge and if too big, then new article for local elections (plural). — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:14, 11 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 merge to 2006 California elections. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 La Mesa, California mayoral election[edit]

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

Non-notable mayoral election in a small suburb of San Diego. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. There is routine mill coverage all local elections have in a major media market, but nothing that demonstrates notability. The election was purely about local issues that do not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 California elections, which should have a section on local elections, linking to the ones with their own pages. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 California elections as per above. Pilean (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Pilean and Elliot321:, November 2010 California elections is about state-wide elections. There is no page for the Mayor of La Mesa (not notable) and I don't think merging the content into La Mesa would be a good fit. Do you have a location for a merge that you believe the content would fit well in? // Timothy :: talk 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Either I would make a section for local elections in the article - or if the number of local elections covered is unwieldy, make a new article just for 2006 California local elections - or possibly make an article for La Mesa, California mayoral elections and merge all of these in there. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elliot321. First merge and if too big, then new article for local elections (plural). — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:14, 11 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 and unlikely one will emerge with another relist. StarM 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC) StarM 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Hughes[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This page was reported at COIN, where an editor requested deletion. Another user raised notability questions on the talk page five years ago, saying "I'm struggling at the moment to see any of his work that is notable and this article may be a candidate for deletion." I agree that this seems like an autobiography whose subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Possibly (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His work has garnered minimal coverage in the mainstream media and academic press, and accrued little in the way of industry awards and widespread literary merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpea8 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see evidence this meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is very poorly sourced. I have looked for additional sources and only been able to find another interview, which I have added. Tacyarg (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Found one review of his book by World Literature Today and another source [28] is just a passing mention. Ashley yoursmile! 04:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to suggest that the article remains in at least some form as the subject is covered in the Science Fiction Encyclopedia edited by John Clute. http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/hughes_rhys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.175 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — 82.132.213.175 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. [reply]
Rhys Hughes is an important author. The fact can be gauged by his appearance in World Literature Today: https://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/2017/september/cloud-farming-wales-rhys-hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldsteelpen (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — Coldsteelpen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
May I suggest that, before deleting this page, you check Hughes' mentions on one of his publishers' pages, namely Tartarus Press? (http://www.tartaruspress.com/hughes-worming-the-harpy.html) Each of his collections published by Tartarus got excellent reviews, quoted by Tartarus, without, alas, proper links to said reviews. Hughes may be a writer for the happy fews but he nonetheless deserves a Wikipedia page. — Amembo1911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the three editors offering a range of evidence of notability, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I looked at the references listed here, the refs at the bio page, and I hunted for some new ones on my own. Nothing shows Hughes to be a notable author. He's mentioned in passing while discussing other stuff, or a book of his gets reviewed somewhere unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient body of work and industry esteem give this guy just enough notability. Binksternet (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Jenyire2 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer in question. I note that my Wikipedia page has been nominated for deletion. I have been invited to contribute to the discussion that will decide whether the page remains or is deleted. I wish to state that, contrary to the claim that there are no reviews of my work from respected sources, there are in fact plenty of such reviews. For example Publishers Weekly has reviewed several of my books including: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-943813-36-0 https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-905784-71-4 among others.

There is a paper on my work by Richard Bleiler in Supernatural Fiction Writers, published by Scribners in 2003 https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Supernatural_Fiction_Writers_Peter_Ackro.html?id=1RjuAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y There is another article on my work in the St James Guide to Horror, Ghost and Gothic Writers published in 1998 https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/St_James_Guide_to_Horror_Ghost_Gothic_Wr.html?id=taERAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Lots of interviews at respected sites including the Hugo Award winning Lightspeed Magazine (winner in 2014) https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/nonfiction/author-spotlight-rhys-hughes/?fbclid=IwAR35E6NCe5ul1aPrdYEGVcRVHM7xO-7h2pKM3Q4BgJyYq_igBF3tjYvMoW0

There are interviews with me connected with various national newspapers but I have no idea how to reference non-internet sources here. Any help with how to do this will be appreciated.

My work has appeared in many anthologies from big publishers such as this one from Vintage/Penguin https://lithub.com/on-the-biggest-collection-of-fantasy-tales-since-wwii/?fbclid=IwAR2_yOFurD2BIJeexqIkhiswrf2pDweLR0bHRNgTNEPciiHnZ4jXKsc3wo8 This anthology was reviewed by Booklist and my own contribution was highlighted as a standout. Once again I don't know how to reference Booklist, which is not online.

I don't know if any of this has helped my cause at all (which is retain the article in at least some form) but there are many references to my work online. The above is just a tiny selection.

Regards, Rhys92.40.182.220 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I have struck my comment about unimportant reviews; certainly Publishers Weekly is major. But the guideline at WP:AUTHOR asks for the author to have created "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." How significant or well-known are books that did not sell well and did not get nominated for awards? That's what we are here to gauge. I will be interested to hear from editors who are active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'How significant or well-known are books that did not sell well and did not get nominated for awards?'Interesting question. I am reminded of the admirable (and arguably significant) Max Beerbohm who never got any award of any kind and whose books did not sell well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amembo1911 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for not selling many books... Some of my titles have done better than others. I have done well in Portugal and Greece, for example. I will look for links to the national newspaper articles in those countries that ran features on my work. As for awards: I have often been nominated. I haven't won any yet, that's true.

I found an online link for a Booklist review of The Big Book of Modern Fantasy edited by the VanderMeers and published by Vintage last summer. I thought booklist was only a paper publication but here is the review. In a volume featuring Nabokov, Marquez, et al, I would say that to be singled out as a standout is fairly significant: https://www.booklistonline.com/The-Big-Book-of-Modern-Fantasy-Ann-VanderMeer/pid=9734891?fbclid=IwAR0-LQnb7_Qq5T3xg1d2Qj3jn-SXe48TGOMEhyzNTPJwN_xnrI4q3CxlKT4&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

(I have been favourably reviewed by Booklist often.)

Lots of reviews of my work at Locus, one of the major SF and fantasy resources: https://locusmag.com/2014/07/paul-di-filippo-reviews-scott-nicolay-and-rhys-hughes/ Another example: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?59423

There have been academic papers and articles on my work in a variety of journals, such as this one from the University of Coimbra: https://eg.uc.pt/handle/10316/87742

There are hundreds of references that exist about my work. I can find links over the coming days, if that is what is required. I never kept a record of all the references to my work but I am sure I can find enough to prove that (a) mainstream media has reviewed my work and presented features on it, (b) there has been academic attention paid to my work, (c) I have been cited as significant by many major writers working in the field of fantasy and science fiction (Samuel Delany, Michael Moorcock, Jeff VanderMeer, etc)

Regards, Rhys Hughes92.40.183.183 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks to the author for presenting his case. However, assuming these are the best references and resources he can cite, I'm not convinced it is enough to sway this discussion in his favour. A large percentage of the material he presents is unverifiable, other examples are many years old, and still others sound like pure bluster ("There are interviews with me connected with various national newspapers" - no accompanying links). No doubt any active writer, even the lowly self-published, would be able to provide numerous sources where their work, or references to it, can be found. The task then becomes to gauge how popular and well-received those sources are. Publisher's Weekly is a good source, but features dozens if not hundreds of book reviews each month, and inclusion does not automatically grant a wikipedia page. I am of the opinion that as a resource, Wikipedia should hold itself to a higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpea8 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about my work in Diario de Noticias, the largest Portuguese national newspaper: https://www.dn.pt/arquivo/2007/uma-mulher-que-e-metade-peixe-e-outras-fabulosas-bizarrias-989188.html A link to a photo of the article in question: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kQ15IFX9ZWU/Tj2KHrHxZ2I/AAAAAAAADs4/UxRjKJI-4qE/s1600/DN%2B22%2Bweb.jpg

A second article in the same newspaper: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/129/3649/1600/DN6a_171106.jpg

A third: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7873/687/320/Di%3F%3Frio%20de%20Not%3F%3Fcias.jpg

I will look for other articles that have appeared in Le Monde, El Pais and other national newspapers in the coming days.

One of my books selected as among a year's ten best SF books on the SF Site. Selected by Jeff VanderMeer: https://www.sfsite.com/lists/jeff2002.htm Jeff VanderMeer wrote the afterword to my novel Engelbecht Again. I will provide photos for that very soon.

(Same for Michael Moorcock's foreword to my book Stories from a Lost Anthology.)

A lengthy article by John Clute. One of many he has written about my work: http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/columns/scores-9/

Many reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper of my work: http://leepers.us/evelyn/reviews/hughes.htm

These are significant writers and critics (check them out on Wikipedia if you don't know who they are).

TinismDotc0m[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG; record label with no notable releases; coverage that can be found is only trivial; mentioning the record label in passing. I could not find any reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of this record label to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant coverage per WP:ORGSIG – the website www.tinizm.com is dead – one of their artists did win an award, but I don't think that's enough to establish notability – they aren't included on the Wikipedia List of record labels: R–Z – I would recommend a Redirect, but none of the company's founders or artists have articles on Wikipedia, so there is no target – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:21, 3 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. There is disagreement on the reliability of sources. In general, if one is to argue for a subject's notability by pointing to sources, it is better to go by quality rather than quantity. That is, it is better to submit a few good sources rather than many sources of questionable reliability. On level of support, the debate here is about evenly divided, but it is worth looking at the merits of the sources that Cunard provided, and the rebuttals against it.

In particular, I looked at two sources that there was no direct rebuttal to beyond a blanket statement that none of the references meet the requirement to establish notability.

First off is the book by Peter Cohan. I can only get a sampling of the book's content via Google Books, but the EzCater company is discussed, and not merely mentioned, in that book. I have not been able to establish any relation between Cohan and the subject.

Second is the Bloomberg source. According to WP:RSPSRC, much of the Bloomberg website is accepted as reliable sourcing, but there is a section of company profiles and biographical profiles that lack independence. Based on the content, this could be considered a profile, but the article has been published in Bloomberg's news section, and there are two authors, Verhage and Zaleski who I will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume to be independent of the subject. There was no direct rebuttal to the Bloomberg article, and it is arguably reliable.

At this point, I see two sources that are at least arguably reliable, and as such there is merit to the "keep" side of the debate. As such, a "no consensus" result defaults to retaining the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EzCater[edit]

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

nonnotable company sourced almost entirely to press releases and local puff pieces. CUPIDICAE💕 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page passed AfC and has a lot of notable sources. They meet WP:N and WP:SIGCOV based on the list of existing sources and based on the sources I've added. 98.166.80.152 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing afc is not a bar of notability. It's one reviewers opinion that it has a 50/50 shot at AFD. CUPIDICAE💕 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ezCater is a well-known unicorn startup company (I believe they're on the 'Unicorn Startups list' on Wiki) and based on the amount of articles included on this page and after reading through them to ensure they meet WP:RS I would think this article passes the 'notability' criteria on Wikipedia. I've included a couple more supporting sources. If you don't think the articles provided as sources on this page prove that the company is notable I implore you to explore the sources further. 137.45.78.150 (talk) 14:58, 1 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 03:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current sources passexs WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you or anyone else mysteriously showing up care to provide those sources which are independent coverage? CUPIDICAE💕 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cohan, Peter S. (2019). Scaling Your Startup: Mastering the Four Stages from Idea to $10 Billion. New York: Apress. pp. 100–103. ISBN 978-1-4842-4311-4. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The book has a heading titled "Success Case Study: ezCater's Culture Helps Propel It to $700 Million Valuation". The book has a "Case Analysis" subheading that notes: "ezCater appeared to have taken its time to build a scalable business model and raised a significant amount of capital to boost its revenues to the point where it might be able to go public. While ezCater was in no hurry to get there, it appeared to have a clear idea of how it would be able to scale and was not being pushed by investor pressure to which other companies might succumb."
2. Verhage, Julie; Zaleski, Olivia (2018-06-19). "Women in Tech Score Symbolic Wins, but Cash Is Still Hard to Come By. EzCater, run by a woman, just raised $100 million—but it's more an exception than the rule". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "For the past 21 years, serial startup founder Stefania Mallett has been seeking venture capital, usually from white male investors. Late last week, she finalized her biggest investment yet, $100 million to grow EzCater Inc., a startup she co-founded 10 years ago to connect businesses with catering from local restaurants. ... EzCater's funding round is the largest secured by a female founder and CEO in tech this year."
3. Lagorio-Chafkin, Christine (2019-07-30). "EzCater Launched With an Idea for Feeding Hungry Doctors. Now It's a Billion-Dollar Catering Business. Stefania Mallett and Briscoe Rodgers noticed how much catered meals helped sales reps who were trying to woo clients. That realization evolved into ezCater, a 750-employee company that's now going international". Inc. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "Online catering marketplace ezCater is not your typical unicorn--if the fact you've perhaps never heard its name doesn't make that readily apparent. For one thing, the company is based not in Silicon Valley, but rather in Boston. Its founder isn't a young man armed with an MBA, it's Stefania Mallett, a veteran executive who is now 63. Nevertheless, ezCater--an online marketplace for catered meal delivery--is valued at $1.25 billion following a $150 million funding round led by Lightspeed Venture Partners in April. The business has doubled sales eight years running--and if it does so again in 2020, it'll hit $1 billion in orders."
4. Griffith, Erin (2015-10-06). "Exclusive: EzCater closes $28 million in funding from Insight Venture Partners". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article includes analysis about ezCater: "EzCater has followed a somewhat nontraditional path as a startup, bootstrapping for years before taking on funding in 2011. ... It works similar to consumer-facing food ordering platforms like GrubHub or Seamless, only for catering orders placed in advance."
5. Kirsner, Scott (2020-04-23). "At ezCater, they got a dreaded e-mail, and then 420 lost their jobs. Here's how it went down at the catering startup, from the perspective of the boss and an employee". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
6. Chuang, Tamara (2018-05-01). "Food tech comes to Denver as Boston catering-tech company ezCater expands, plans to hire 100". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
7. Roof, Katie (2018-06-19). "EzCater Raises $100 Million for Catering". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
8. Clark, Kate (2019-04-01). "Online catering marketplace ezCater gets another $150M at a $1.25B valuation". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
9. Dillet, Romain (2018-07-23). "ezCater acquires GoCater to expand beyond the US". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
10. Solomon, Brian (2017-01-11). "EzCater Raises $35 Million To Deliver Food To A Meeting Near You". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow EzCater to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Note The applicable SNG for determining whether references can be used to establish notability is WP:NCORP and not GNG (as has been confirmed at the RfC at WP:N. The result is that "echo chamber" references which are based on company announcements, interviews, quotations, financial results, funding announcements, etc, fall outside of establishing notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references (including those posted by Cunard above) meet the requirements for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. If any Keep !voters believe there are references that meet the requirements, post a link below and lets see. As it is, topic may pass GNG (which is irrelevant for examining sources to establish notability as per the RfC at WP:N) but fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. ~~Forbes non-staff~~ and TechCrunch are classic bad sources. WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid. The guiding criteria here are WP:NCORP criteria for identifying dependent sources. This article cannot fail WP:NCORP and be sustainable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EzCater passes both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. The sources I provided meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
The Apress book has a case study about ezCater that says, "ezCater appeared to have taken its time to build a scalable business model and raised a significant amount of capital to boost its revenues to the point where it might be able to go public. While ezCater was in no hurry to get there, it appeared to have a clear idea of how it would be able to scale and was not being pushed by investor pressure to which other companies might succumb." This is independent analysis from the author Peter Cohan. That the case study includes quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire case study non-independent.
The Bloomberg News article includes analysis by noting that "EzCater's funding round is the largest secured by a female founder and CEO in tech this year", while the Inc. article notes that "Online catering marketplace ezCater is not your typical unicorn--if the fact you've perhaps never heard its name doesn't make that readily apparent. For one thing, the company is based not in Silicon Valley, but rather in Boston. Its founder isn't a young man armed with an MBA, it's Stefania Mallett, a veteran executive who is now 63." That they include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire articles non-independent.
The Bloomberg News and Inc. sources are about the company getting funding and being valued at $1.25 billion. But they are not just "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage) since they provide a substantial overview and analysis about the company.
An AfD participant, Alalch Emis, wrote about a "Forbes non-staff" article. The 2017 Forbes article I provided is from "Brian Solomon, Former Staff". According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/, "Brian Solomon was a Forbes staff writer from 2011 to 2017."
The same AfD participant wrote, "WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid." This is a defamatory allegation that is made without evidence against Katie Roof, the writer of The Wall Street Journal article and is a violation of WP:BLPTALK.
Cunard (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response You have extracted particular comments from each of the articles but you haven't looked at the extracts in the context of the overall article. None of the articles go beyond summarizing information provided by the company or their executives. Extracting a single sentence here and there which are embedded in verbatim interviews or commentary on announcements is not "Independent Content" but a summary of what has been said. Your quote from CORPDEPTH is intended to give the impression that anything other than a reprint of a company announcement is OK, but you fail to acknowledge the example at ORGIND which states that "Dependent Coverage" that is not sufficient to establish notability includes "any material that is substantially based on such press released even if published by independent sources" and also other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the "forbes non-staff" statement. I stand by my suspicion towards the WSJ article, I'm 110% entitled to it. The suspicion is based on the content, form (length in particular) which are highly resembling of self-submitted material for publishing — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the "sites" part of the Forbes website is, in general, said to not fall under editorial scrutiny - lots of editors assume that if the articles are written by staff members then they are OK but this is debatable. Nonetheless, even if we take the Forbes article at face value, it fails ORGIND. The article uses lots of phrases attributing the facts to company sources - for example after the basic intro it says "On Wednesday, ezCater announced ..." and then moves on to "In an interview with FORBES, ezCater cofounder and CEO Stefania Mallett said ..." and this interview takes up most of the article. Other paragraphs start with "ezCater claims to be ...", "It boasts nearly ...", "Mallett says the company is ..." and "According to PitchBook ...". This is "echo-chamber" reporting but isn't useful for establishing the veracity or notability of the company as none of the claims are independently checked as they are all attributed. There isn't an iota of Independent Content (as defined by WP:ORGIND) and therefore that source fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per other sources and keep arguments above. I think there's just about enough for notability. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response This isn't a counting of !votes. Which sources pass NCORP? What arguments are you supporting (bearing in mind that GNG-based arguments are technically irrelevant since NCORP is the applicable guideline for determining the applicability of sources). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources provided by Cunard above seem to be the extent of meaningful coverage; with that said, I agree with HighKing about the quality of the sources. Coverage of financials, acquisitions aren't significant commentary per NCORP as presented. A lot of them read as PR/puff pieces that doesn't suggest independence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I compare this article's references with WP:NCORP's analysis table, almost none pass all 4 criteria (SIRS). I do feel that NCORP has raised the standard pretty high for corporations - but we should go by it. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Dial911 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Where, exactly, is notability supposed to lie here? A hell of a lot of re-hashed press releases. Content about the founder but not significant, independent and reliable sources talking about the subject - I don't see that. The arguments above do concern me that payment is probably involved somewhere in the process. In my view this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:25, 15 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 redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Percy the Small Engine[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp b/c "too iconic". Fair enough. Let's discuss here. Over the last half a year or so we had AfDs about most of the characters from this series and almost all ended up redirected to List of characters in The Railway Series, and I suggest the same is done here. Also ping User:EEng#s who on the talk page concluded this article is WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I don't have an opinion on notability; what I said on the article talk page is that the article is chock-full of fancruft. It's possible that after the cruft is purged it may be a WP:NOPAGE candidate. E Eng 04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral, but I do object to articles being prodded when their deletion would clearly be controversial. Prodding is being overused to get around having to have an AfD discussion and this needs to be curbed. Its purpose is only to rapidly delete rubbish and clearly non-notable articles (my mate, my mate's band, my favourite vlog, my great-great-grandfather who happened to fight in WWI, etc), not any article an editor doesn't approve of, and its increasing use for the latter is disturbing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, Most of the examples given by you fall under CSD... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do they? WP:A7 is often mis-understood and applied too broadly. Most of those, if they try to establish some sense of importance, which they would, should be PRODed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Increasingly this is not being applied. Some deletionist editors have even suggested that removing prods is tantamount to vandalism and that any editor who does so is sabotaging their efforts to 'clean up' Wikipedia because taking articles to AfD is too much trouble and a waste of their precious time. This has to stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikia. We need reliable sources that are independent showing significant coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series. Following the deprod, no evidence has been given to support the claim that the character is iconic and notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect - I would suspect that Percy is potentially the second best known character in the Railway Series and the Thomas the Tank Engine franchise it spawned, and also probably has the most merchandise after Thomas. However I do not think any of the engines need an individual article, with the exception of Thomas given his clear cultural significance. The information on Percy (and his fellow engines) from the original books and the two "histories" of Sodor and its engines written by the Awdrys can easily be dealt with in List of characters in The Railway Series - information about the character as portrayed on TV (for which there is less factual material) can also be added where appropriate. One slight point I would make though is that if somebody types in "Percy the Small Engine" they might be looking for the Railway Series Book of that title (no 11) rather than the engine, so redirect to List of books in The Railway Series might also be an option and Percy (Railway Series Character) could be a redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series? Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunarc, Maybe a disambig then? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus - That would sound like a good way forward. It could simply be something along the lines of "for the fictional engine see List of characters in The Railway Series for the book see List of books in The Railway Series. Dunarc (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is literally a major protagonist in a very well-known book series. Deleting this page would be the equivalent to deleting the Patrick Star page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dunarc and the consequent subthread. As a standalone it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and I agree with EEng#s about fancruft. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:20, 11 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 Made in Lagos. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essence (Wizkid song)[edit]

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

Apart from being featured on Barack Obama's favourite songs of 2020 playlist, there is no indication that this song is one of the most important songs in Nigeria or Africa last year and it's not notable. Please an expert on Nigerian music should review this. Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep There aren't a lot of sources that talk about the song but it passes #1 WP:NSONG for having an entry on the Afrobeats Chart Top 20. Which seems to show importance. -Xclusivzik (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charting does not warrant notability. The only criterion that matters is "third-party independent coverage". Read carefully: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. HĐ (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Made in Lagos. A search on Google shows minimal results on this song, thus there is not enough material for a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NSINGLE is a crystal reflection of WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm voting to keep because the single has reached #1 on a significant UK chart, which means it's an international record not limited to Nigeria. The fact that it was on Obama's favorite songs of 2020 playlist shows that it also has United States and international exposure. It's also on a major record label. Additionally to the 2020 playlist, it's now February 2021 and the song was gained momentum, peaking at #1 on the chart. I am aware that the criteria for establishing the notability of a song say that being ranked on a chart does not automatically imply notability, not even winning a Grammy!!! This is why I believe these guidelines should be revised. Also, let's remember these are guidelines, not laws. TanookiKoopa (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Made in Lagos - It has absolutely no notability outside of being on a charting album, being on a former president's playlist and reaching number one on a minor side chart. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Made in Lagos - Fails WP:NSINGLE. No coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The afrobeat chart ranking isn't that notable enough to warrant a separate article. Ashley yoursmile! 13:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) — The single has been on the chart for more than 9 weeks. This album review gives Essence 3 paragraphs: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/music-reviews/424316-review-wizkid-comes-almost-made-in-new-album-made-in-lagos.html TanookiKoopa (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited is not considered WP:RSMUSIC. HĐ (talk) 04:58, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ling[edit]

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

I know the boston Globe is generally reliable, but I am not sure of whether it is for local restaurants--especially when the quote for how good the restaurant is comes from their attorney. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 07:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, it looks like the restaurant Sally was made famous for has closed down. I'm not seeing enough coverage on it's history to warrant WP:N either. Redoryxx (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continued coverage in The Boston Globe and Boston magazine, among other publications. Through a quick search, I've found several articles that were not cited (which I am now trying to use to expand the article). More could probably be found with some effort, particularly by looking through pre-internet newspaper archives, from the time when the original restaurant was still open. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She, or at least her eponymous restaurant, is notable per in-depth press coverage. Boston Magazine said the restaurant was "a legend"[29] and Scout Magazine called it "famous."[30] pburka (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig ^talk 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Semmes, Anne (1994-11-27). "Dining Out; Chinese Dishes With a Difference". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "With the friendly, generally efficient service by waiters in black tie, and the polished, comfortable setting, one's expectations for the food are high. But although some dishes are good, others are lackluster. Novelty dishes, timid seasoning and carved vegetable garnishes in Day-Glo colors probably won't draw Fort Lee's large Asian population. The restaurant is obviously trying to be user friendly for non-Asians."
2. Jones, Catherine (1999-01-17). "Restaurants; Chinese in the New Year". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "Though its focus on healthy cuisine is not a constant, Sally Ling's offers a good bargain, an extensive selection and incredible service. In the year to come, I can only hope the cooks become more aggressive with their seasoning, more confident with their restriction of fat and more inventive with their culinary creations."
3. Smith, Ruth Bayard (1999-03-19). "At Sally Ling's in Fort Lee". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "In Boston in the mid- to late-1980s, Sally Ling's name was synonymous with upscale Chinese food, while Ling herself was touted as a force on the city's gourmet scene. No Formica countertops, no high-fat cooking, no communication barriers; her restaurants (at one time she had six in the area) provided true dining experiences."
4. "Sally Ling's: 'Light and Healthy' Selections". The Star-Ledger. 1995-10-29. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Sally Ling's is a storefront establishment a few blocks from Route 80 in one of those ubiquitous small strip malls, but it's nicely decorated in pastels with an art deco flair, many cuts above the average neighborhood Chinese restaurant."
5. Hoffman, Barbara (1994-06-24). "At Sally Ling's in Fort Lee". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "There's an old rule of thumb old, and not necessarily true that you can judge a Chinese restaurant by its clientele: The more Chinese customers you see, the better it is. Which is why I felt pessimistic at Sally Ling's, as I stood behind the Himmelfarb party and glumly counted the house. But when the food arrived, my doubts dissolved in a sea of silky dumplings, savory hot and sour soup, and sizzling seafood."
6. Saunders, Gus (1994-05-29). "Dining: Renovated Sally Ling's offers delectable, unique Chinese fare". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "When Sally Ling's opened on the waterfront seven years ago, with tuxedoed waiters, an excellent wine list and an outstanding menu, she was the first to introduce Bostonians to an elite style of Chinese food."
7. Levey, Robert (1987-10-01). "A Matter of Taste: Upscale dining in Copley Square". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2074230040. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Since I was recognized on my visits, service was extremely attentive, but any diner will note the almost excessive attentions of the staff. The waiters are skilled in presenting the kitchen's specialties. When your order arrives, they first show the prepared dishes to the table and then retreat to a nearby station and deftly divide the portions on individual plates."
8. Levey, Robert (1984-09-13). "A Matter of Taste: Chinese Cuisine, Manhattan Style". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 1734129693. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Sally Ling's opened on the waterfront three months ago proclaiming itself to be 'a gourmet Chinese restaurant.' If you are beginning to suspect that this glorified description might be reflected in the prices, you are right. It is very easy to spend $80 per couple here for dinner, drinks, tax and tip. ... Sally Ling's is a unique addition to the Boston dining scene. It will strike some as over-priced and pretentious. But I suspect it will also become a favorite for others who are attracted to its upscale style and very good food and who don't worry about the total on the check."
9. Levey, Robert (1989-02-23). "Spectacular setting for Chinese cuisine". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2444954402. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
  This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "Sally Ling's gourmet Chinese restaurant made its name five years ago by introducing to Boston a fancy Asian menu and choreographing a luxurious dining experience involving sleek contemporary decor, tuxedoed waiters, tableside service and much pampering."
10. Levey, Robert (1986-10-28). "To China with Love". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 1952929269. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes that the last time Sally Ling was in China was when "her family left the country when she was a month-old infant". It noted that she traveled back to China for the first time in 1986 "as part of a small Massachusetts culinary delegation that is embarking on a remarkable 15-day Chefs' Tour" in a trip her husband, Ed Liu, set up.
11. Jenkins, Arya-Francesca (2007-03-16). "Sally Ling named 'Person of the Year'". Fort Lee Suburbanite. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that the Englewood Cliffs mayor, James Parisi Jr., selected Sally Ling as Person of the Year in the city. The article further notes that Fort Lee Rotary Club selected her as Person of the Year. It notes that she was born in China and resided in Brazil when she was a teenager. It notes that at age 17 she traveled to the United States as a foreign student.
12. Hanes, Phyllis (1988-02-17). "Chinese New Year. Dining out in America". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "Ling was recently an instructor of Chinese cuisine as a member of the Master Chefs of Boston seminar series on the Boston University Culinary Arts Program."
13. "Openings / Expansions". The Record. 1998-06-10. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes about Sally Ling's, a Chinese-Japanese restaurant: "Sally Ling, who has 20 years of restaurant experience, and her daughter Christina designed the interior, which is suggestive of a rustic Oriental courtyard."
14. "What's cooking: Renamed Ha Ha lets Sally Ling laugh last". Boston Herald. 1997-01-12. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "The name Sally Ling's, identified in the '80s with a trendsetting Chinese restaurant, all but disappeared when the Boston waterfront restaurant closed and the Newton restaurant changed its name to Ha Ha."
15. Levey, Robert (1988-01-26). "Sally Ling's Moving to Cambridge". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2227935737. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sally Ling and Sally Ling's to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 8 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 Vercors Massif. This allows merging as some suggest. Sandstein 08:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vercors Cave System[edit]

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

This article is about a non-existent subject. It maintains that "The Vercors cave 'system' is an Anglophone way of referring to the many long, narrow caves situated in the Vercors Massif", but without giving a reference to that basic fact. I have never heard or seen the caves of Vercors being referred to as the "Vercors Cave System". The introduction implies that the caves of Vercors are long, narrow caves - this certainly does match the reality, and contradicts what follows. The section on the "History" is trite and misleading in that the British have played little part in the exploration of the caves in the area, and the facts contained in the section on the "Skeleton of Boy" are not backed up by the reference given. I recommend that this article be deleted. Langcliffe (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly caves in Vercors – here's a book about them. See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Andrew - but my point is that there are many cave systems in the Vercors - but not a "Vercors cave system" which is what the article is about, and your reference (I have a copy) does not indicate that there is. As pointed out above, most of the contents of the article are wrong and misleading. Any reference to a "Vercors Cave System" on the web post-date this article. One compromise is if I extend the Vercors article to discuss its cave systems. Langcliffe (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article can be deleted and a part, a chapter caving can be added to Vercors Massif.

--Biboc (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Vercors Massif as suggested above.

Meugher2002 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and merger are incompatible – see WP:MAD. The editors suggesting merger fail to explain how this would add any value. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - Maybe I have used the wrong terminology - if so, please forgive me. My main point is that the article is about "Vercors Cave System". But there isn't a "Vercors Cave System". We are all agreed that there are caves in the Vercors, but not a "Vercors Cave System", and no one so far has disputed this. To have an article about a subject that doesn't exist is obviously nonsense - or at least it is so to my brain. If the article is to be retained, I suggest that it should be demonstrated that there actually is a "Vercors Cave System".

What I was trying to suggest, albeit in my own rather ineffective way, is that the Vercors Massif article could be extended to have a fuller discussion on the various Vercors cave systems to satisy what was probably the intention of the creator of the article. Currently, we only have the words "In the massif's karstic area is the Vercors Cave System and the Gouffre Berger." The Gouffre Berger is indeed significant being the first in the world to be explored to a depth of over 1000 metres, and still the deepest in the area, but there are over a dozen separate systems which have been explored to a length of over 30km, some of which are worthy of mention. Langcliffe (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is not a cave system. CAVE SYSTEM A collection of caves interconnected by enterable passages or linked hydrologically or a cave with an extensive complex of chambers and passages. (Glossary of Cave and Karst Terminology, Wiley)
There is a set of caves, possibly including some smaller cave systems, but as others have noted it's a cave-system-not-a-cave-system and such a construct is unsuitable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:08, 11 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. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Griffin[edit]

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

~~I'm tired of people contesting PRODs for non-notable musicians.~~ Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted in the edit summary where I contested the WP:PROD, Mr. Griffin meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO: "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". He has been a prominent member of both The Dixie Melody Boys and Greater Vision, both of which are decidedly notable ensembles. He has also written many of the songs performed by Greater Vision and other notable gospel groups. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that MUSICBIO states that a subject may be notable, not that the subject is notable. If he is a prominent member of these quartets, then we should be able to read volumes about the subject. Since none is present and none can be found on the Internet with my WP:BEFORE search, I nominated for PROD and now again for AfD. if no sources can be supported to support the subject's notability, the article must be deleted. And the not at the bottom of the section is similarly clear, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further to this point, and to show my BEFORE I did find passing mentions in most articles, such as those linked at http://www.sgmradio.com/tag/rodney-griffin/ > Granted http://www.sgmradio.com/2013/11/25/greater-vision-telling-it-like-it-is/ has a bit of weight to it but most, like http://www.sgmradio.com/2013/01/08/greater-vision-an-increasing-perspective-part-one/ are about the quartet and not Griffin and simply mention him. And then there are unreliable sources like https://kentuckysings.com/2019/10/02/a-talk-with-greater-visions-rodney-griffin/. Now https://www.sgnscoops.com/beyond-the-song-with-rodney-griffin-of-greater-vision/ looked promisng, until you realized it's a WordPress blog that is not even set-up correctly. I found more this: http://www.sgmradio.com/tag/rodney-griffin/ and http://www.absolutelygospel.com/agm/tag/rodney-griffin/ than I did with signfigant coverage. I even found https://www.allmusic.com/artist/rodney-griffin-mn0000834889/credits that offers his credits, but unlike other notable Suthern Gospel acts, there is no biography (like https://www.allmusic.com/artist/bill-gaither-mn0000765068/biography for Bill Gaither). If AllMusic does not have a biography about the subject, I suspect that the subject is not notable. So if you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, please add it to the article so I can say WP:HEY and withdraw my nomination, or show them here because I missed them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I'm not nearly as active here as I once was, so I'm sure some of the nuances of policy may escape me, but I find it remarkable that Mr. Griffin can be considered non-notable under policy while we de facto keep any one-sentence stub about Joe Blow who had two at-bats for the Red Sox 100 years ago. (And yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) As a singer, he meets one of the criteria set out by WP:MUSICBIO (noted above). As a songwriter, he also meets multiple criteria for notability: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" and "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers" (he wrote "My Name is Lazarus", which was nominated for a Dove Award and won "Song of the Year" at the Southern Gospel Music Association Awards in 2000. He also received SGMA "Songwriter of the Year" in 2000.[31][32] His unprecedented streak as Favorite Songwriter in The Singing News' Fan Awards is no doubt being discounted because it is a fan award category, but so is all-star recognition in most sports, and that's used as a measure of notability. Also, The Signing News awards are cited in published works about Southern Gospel music, including the Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music (which cites Griffin's wins in its article about Greater Vision) and the SGMA Hall of Fame and Museum (which notes wins by Griffin's bandmate, Gerald Wolfe, in The Singing News Fan Awards). I concede that Google doesn't readily turn up any in-depth coverage of Griffin individually, but even the bits we can piece together from the sources you've cited make more of an article than we have (and probably ever will have) for a good number of "presumed notable" articles about small towns, sports figures, and rare fauna and flora. Not that I'm arguing for their deletion either, but the lack of symmetry between notability guidelines on these subjects is baffling and, to my mind, harmful to the goals of Wikipedia. So if you want to follow the letter of these inconsistent guidelines, go ahead and delete, I guess. But it seems to me that the spirit of these guidelines shows Mr. Griffin to be many-fold more notable than what is currently reflected in the readily available sources.

If my tone seems a little peeved, well - it is. Maybe it was your intro that "I'm tired of people contesting PRODs for non-notable musicians." Very WP:CIVIL, don't you think? Especially given that it's the first time - to my knowledge - that I've ever committed such a "sin". Can you honestly say this is a better encyclopedia for having omitted Mr. Griffin? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. It was not only speaking of you. I'm going through some clearly non-notable musicians (who are more notable than this subject) all because they were members of a notable band and one editor removed the PRODs, and that editor has not come to see the overwhelming support for deletion in the AfDs. Sorry if you felt singled-out. I have struck the comment, although it is clearly on-record. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not "reasonably prominent" that means we would find coverage about him specifically which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he does have a number of notable awards / nominations and some significant coveage such as here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per references provided above, Griffin has won awards as a songwriter.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:54, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ho[edit]

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

A karting driver with essentially no meaningful coverage that completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that shows that GNG is passed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 3 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) 04:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Ugochukwu[edit]

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

A karting driver with essentially no meaningful coverage that completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per 5225C, I checked the sources used in the article & asides this piece of which I’m not sure the subject of our discussion is even mentioned there none of the other sources used appear to be reliable.Celestina007 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable young teen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wadlow[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of his two books that I just added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable academic in patent law. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a copyvio per Earwig, although the website it was copied from is now archived. May well qualify for WP:G12. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got "18% - violation unlikely" on that link - has the article been cleaned up since? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, How bizarre! I now get a 4.8% unlikely, but it hasn't been changed at all. I'm pretty sure the link the tool flagged when I ran it was this archived official bio of Wadlow, which Earwig now doesn't seem to think is similar at all. Unclear what's going on. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As per WP:AUTHOR. Pilean (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As per WP:Author Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:57, 3 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 Rangana Herath. It is useful when a general consensus can be had so that AfDs become lower stakes - certain articles don't get nominated while other articles, which don't satisify the general consensus (whether formal or informal) get deleted without objection. This kind of sorting seems to be at play with Cricket at the moment and so it is not surprising some articles end up merge while others end up delete. That is a long preamble to say that the consensus for this particular article clearly seems to be that it shouldn't exist (hence the preponderance of delete) but also an openness that there might be information worth saving (hence noting acceptance for a limited merge by several editors who bolded delete). Redirecting seems to be the underlying consensus given that information remains available to merge, should someone wish and in accordance with WP:ATD, but also will no longer be a separate independent article with the close of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Rangana Herath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rangana Herath (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wikiproject cricket consensus was that these were fine if they had 20+ five-wicket hauls, which Ntini has. Herath has the 7th most of any cricketer ever. Improve rather than delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it needs improving, not deleting. We have FLs for cricketers with fewer five wicket hauls than Herath, and the fact he has the sixth most means there will be text that can be added. Which is way more sensible than this deletion crusade. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge) consistent with the relatively established practice apparent from above note to closer, where the voluminous raw data charts are not included. Also: adding text to a WP:RAWDATA article, which text isn't sustainable on it's own or would better find it's place in the primary article, does not make it not-a-WP:RAWDATA article. Basically whichever specific intervention is the most consistent whereby the standalone article is no more. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability for this list although a careful and greatly restricted merge would be acceptable. The complete insertion of the table would not be appropriate. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:18, 15 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. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Atherton[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER (Lt awarded a DFC) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DFC not significantly notable, not seeing SIGCOV either. Zawed (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this article. His DFC is significantly notable - please read improved article, which covers his post WWII career in aviation. He was also featured in US Navy Recruitment as a hero and honored by the State of New Hampshire. I have also included his participation in the location of a crashed civil passenger aircraft in 1968. User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are clearly related to the subject which should be disclosed per WP:AVOIDCOI and your Keep and contributions will be assessed accordingly. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see my profile. I am British. No blood connection and also no COI. Like any author, it’s pride in my active research to salvage past work against such nominations for deletion and prevent my past contribution from being put in the bin. The subject matter is of interest to me and I hope it will be to others. Yes I happen to share the last name (as do many many thousands of others throughout the globe). I reiterate that anyone who created an article in his or her own time will feel the way I do.User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mztourist. A DFC is a DFC in this regard, and it might have the most captivating story behind it, but it's not the highest or second highest decoration. The references in the Career section appear to be somewhere in between trivial non-trivial mentions, but I have a hard time understanding how some of the assertions are supported by the sources. I didn't literally read each one of the 60s newspaper clips, but calling him specifically a pioneer of aviation looks like WP:SYNTH. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of the article. In my quest to salvage I have culled all the “trivia” (post war career). As mentioned above I and trying to preserve a WW2 decorated veteran from being culled from this encyclopaedia. I hope this makes a difference. A shorter article might generate some fresh perspective. User:Adin-Atherton (talk) 21:45, 10 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warsangali Sultanate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created a redirect by mistake, this appears to be an article deleted as a result of an AfD ([33]). Redirect could cause confusion so requesting to be deleted per G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) Dabaqabad (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 3 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Santucci[edit]

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

I can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to show this businessman reaches the required level of notability. It might seem like there's a lot of references, but none of them are of the required standard, most aren't even about the subject. I stripped out the External Links section as it mostly contained deadlinks, links tangentially related to the subject, or iffy sources: none of them were usable as references. He might have done a lot of stuff, but that doesn't equate to notability here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. I don't see any actual evidence of any notability. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine career DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More 4 Me (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable documentary, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Prior AfD ended in "no consensus". Donaldd23 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just aren't enough (or really any) sources out there to establish notability for the film. The "review" from Malcolm McCusker is a quote in a press release, so it should be assumed that this is a typical promotional blurb and not an actual review. The awards aren't enough to establish notability on that basis alone and there's really no coverage for the film to speak of. It looks like it released and got little to no fanfare. I just couldn't find anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Pilean (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above by ReaderofthePack. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:50, 3 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 Siberian Husky. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seppala Siberian Sleddog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. This appears to be a strain of Siberian Huskies purportedly descended from Leonhard Seppala’s dog Togo, but I can find no attributable reliable sources about them to establish their notability. Of the five books listed in the reference section:

three are self published from authors with no known subject matter expertise so should be considered unreliable (Jeffery J. Bragg is a breeder of these dogs [34])
one is a book about Leonhard Seppala, Ricker,^[2] I cannot find a copy to verify what it says, but it was published nine years before this line of dogs was supposed to have been founded so I think it’s safe to assume it doesn’t mention them
the last, Willett,^[3] was published by Heritage North Press website run by Rick & Barb Petura, who appear to have only published a newsletter and six books (all about sleddogs) over a fourteen year period, this being one of only two works published by them not written by the publishers themselves [35] (the other a picture book), so its reliability has to be questioned.

The article also cites the International Seppala Siberian Sleddog Club [36], clearly not independent of the subject.

The last AfD seems to have been contested based upon this existence of this webpage, I can find nothing to establish the author as a subject matter expert and the website appears to be either a WP:SPS, WP:UGC or at best a content farm and so it should not be considered reliable.

Further, Google news throws up a few stories of a woman in Maine using a sleddog team which includes some of these dogs example, but none provide WP:SIGCOV of these dogs, just a mere mention. Cavalryman (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "HISPANIC AMERICANS: ENERGIZING OUR NATION'S DIVERSITY" (PDF). Department of Defense -Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida September 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
^ Ricker, Elizabeth M. (1930). Seppala: Alaskan Dog Driver, Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company.
^ Willett, Douglas W. (1986) The Seppala Siberian, Viola, Idaho: Heritage North Press.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Togo (dog). This is more of a lineage than a breed, without official recognition or independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using what as the source? None of the verifiable sources (putting aside reliability) mention Togo, just the uncited claims in the article. Cavalryman (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Siberian Husky, of which this apparently a line or strain (or perhaps just a brand-name created to make capital from the the name of a famous man). Not one word of independently-sourced content in our page, so nothing to merge. No verifiable reliable coverage on Gbooks, no meaningful coverage on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete- has no significant coverage or reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siberian Husky. In this way, search engines can find Seppala Siberian Sleddog on Wikipedia and a reader will be redirected to SH. William Harris (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siberian Husky with a section on that article on this breed/bloodline. The Seppala and its place in the SH genome is highly controversial in dog sledding circles and its nature is debated widely, but its place in sled dog history is important. I am happy to spearhead this section on the SH article. Mcfuggins (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to point out that the Contenental Kennel Club DOES recognize the Seppala Siberian as an official breed: https://ckcusa.com/miscellaneous/seppala-siberian-sleddog-registration/ , https://ckcusa.com/breeds/seppala-siberian-sleddog/ - I do feel that this could be grounds to preserve this article, and am happy to provide sources to this end. Mcfuggins (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mcfuggins, unfortunately the Contenental Kennel Club itself is not notable and so it cannot be used as a (primary) source for any included information. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm new to this process, so forgive me, but I would like to understand why this is the case? As a canine kennel club, should they not be considered an internal expert on dog breeds? I struggle to see how they are "less notable" from a research standpoint than the AKC or others, other than in monetary resources and public recognition? Mcfuggins (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an topic to be considered notable enough for an independent article on Wikipedia, it should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG); I can find no independent reliable sources that corroborate what the Continental Kennel Club purports to be, therefore it is not suitable to state on the encyclopedia this line of dogs is recognised as a breed by that organisation. If we don't adhere to these standards, anyone can create a glossy website that makes up claims and we soon find ourselves including hoaxes on the encyclopedia.

Further, a review of the Continental Kennel Club's website suggests they make a lot of their money by promoting "new" or "emerging" breeds and giving them some kind of legitimacy, allowing breeders to better market and make money from the sale of their dogs; we are not here to promote people's businesses (see WP:PROMO).

If (when) a reliable source independent of these dogs becomes available, it can be used to cite its existence on the Siberian Husky page (assuming this discussion is closed redirecting the article to that page); if multiple such sources emerge that provide significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) then the article can be recreated, using only information cited to those reliable sources (see WP:NOR). If sufficient reliable, independent sources emerge confirming the Continental Kennel Club is a reputable kennel club then their recognition of the line as a breed can also be cited on the encyclopedia, but until then their recognition is not something that should be included anywhere on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:03, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Standard[edit]

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

No indication this newspaper meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. On a search, all I found were trivial mentions, no substantial coverage or even an indication that such might exist. No interwiki links to comb for sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up absolutely no secondary sourcing, and as a result this fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks coverage AliochaKara (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the newspaper outlet. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasons above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable newspaper. Fatzaof (talk) 13:19, 5 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.

[HHM2015-1] "HISPANIC AMERICANS: ENERGIZING OUR NATION'S DIVERSITY" (PDF). Department of Defense -Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida September 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2021.

[2] Ricker, Elizabeth M. (1930). Seppala: Alaskan Dog Driver, Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company.

[3] Willett, Douglas W. (1986) The Seppala Siberian, Viola, Idaho: Heritage North Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]