Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 06	February 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Donoghue[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single three-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' twenty years ago. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which is way more important than 3 minutes of playing in an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, Subject-specific guidelines supersede WP:GNG. WP:GNG is a general notability guideline to take into account where a subject does not meet for the requirements stated in Subject-specific guidelines. Both work together actually, but technically if a subject meets the requirements for the Subject-specific guidelines is notable. Keep per WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly more interesting than the Mansfield-cruft we had to deal with, but still non-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting GNG and I don't see any reason to keep this one when there is such strong consensus that passing NFOOTBALL by only a few mins is a weak presumption of notability at best. This is no different to the 10 or so Hungarian players deleted in the last fortnight for the same reason. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no subject specific guidelines do not exceed GNG. Good subject specific guidelines come close to telling us when GNG will be met. However in the case of football and cricket it has been shown over and over that the existing guidelines are too broad and are not an accurate indicator of meeting GNG. Subject specific guidelines can be more stringent than GNG, for politicians, because almost every politician who ever ran for office in a place with media would technically meet multiple significant coverage in indepdent sources, but we realize that we do not have the will to create articles on every person who ever ran for a state legislture. Subject specific guidelines do not overcome lack of passing GNG. They point out where we might expect a poorly sourced article to be better sourced, but in football and cricket a long history of deep study has show that the Subject specific guidelines are not predicting a passing of GNG. They should really be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Sock blocked, WP:SOCKSTRIKE.[reply]
Delete, Does not satisfy WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Dahlberg[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single 15-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' six years ago. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG significantly. Agree with User:GiantSnowman. There might be more sources, but they are in Norwegian behind paywalls that I found on a quick search. Redoryxx (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need to make football notability like actor notability and require playing in multiple games that were part of fully professional leagues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above, Not enough time or coverage, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, and the sourcing is poor. If every person who has a mention in a newspaper gets an article, this place would be flooded. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 03:16, 12 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) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hrcka Brøndberg[edit]

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

Technically passes the stupid WP:NFOOTBALL rule, by dint of a single 19-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' 19 years ago. Fell off the football map shortly thereafter, without leaving any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really think football players need to have at least multiple games in fully professional leagues sort of like how actors need multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 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) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HES Unidaptor[edit]

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

Clearly a non-notable third-party Nintendo accessory. I did a WP:BEFORE, and I could not find any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. In fact, this article has been unsourced since it was first created. The external links provided seem to be routine mentions. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT, nor WP:GNG. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the the many other similar product articles we deleted recently. IceWelder [✉] 23:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a shred of evidence to demonstrate notability. No independent sources appear to discuss it. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:22, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Svein Tore Brandshaug[edit]

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

Article tagged with WP:N and WP:V concerns since 2012. My WP:Before checks suggest the article subject technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as he made a single 9-minute substitute appearance for Molde FK in 2002 when the Norwegian men's top division was allegedly 'fully-pro'. The bulk of his career was played out in the amateur lower divisions and there is accordingly scant coverage to support a claim to WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is a Norwegian newspaper search. A lot of hits but not seeing a whole lot of detailed coverage of him specifically. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ousseynou Boye[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTY by making three appearances (two of which were as a substitute) in an alleged 'fully professional league' six years ago. The rest of his career has been spent in the lower divisions. There is no evidence of the type of sustained, non-routine coverage which would meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he also has appearances in the top tier in Egypt and Morocco, both listed at WP:FPL, so passes WP:NFOOTBALL as per Soccerway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are disputing the professional status of those leagues as well? And, wow, I can't believe you're only on B. How many more are going to be culled? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NFOOTBALL. --Kemalcan (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fully pro footballer in pro clubs in pro leagues. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:27, 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) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Boujar[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTY by making two appearances (one as a substitute) in an alleged 'fully professional league' three years ago. The rest of his career has been spent in the lower divisions. There is no evidence of the type of sustained, non-routine coverage which would meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 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 keep. Consensus has shifted towards keeping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The R.M.[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE searches, including customized searches, this film has not received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:NFP and WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only cites IMDb (Unreliable per WP:IMDB). And through searching, I cant seem to find any SIGCOV in any RS, mostly blogs and IMDb. Fails WP:FILMNOT.--Kieran207 talk 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now cites more than just IMDB. Eopsid (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't fit in WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added extra sources, so sources at the time of the above comment have now changed Eopsid (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question I see an entry from Box Office Mojo for it (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0341540/?ref_=bo_se_r_1). Would the addition of this make it pass muster? Just wondering what kind of citations it needs to be considered notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know the BYU Daily Universe reviewed this film, because I remember reading the review. I am not sure I will be able to find that review, since we are talking about a film that came out over 18 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently unsourced. But after going on to the Rotten Tomatoes page for the film, I've found a couple of reviews which could be used for sources and make the article notable. The reviews are: https://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/the-rm/ and https://www.deseret.com/2004/1/20/20090087/film-review-r-m-the Basically I think the article in its current state isnt good enough for Wikipedia but with the addition of a few citations and extra information gleaned from it, it can be made a worthy article. Eopsid (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article adding more sources Eopsid (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been no comments since the article was improved. Needs further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite playing in no more than 30 theaters at once, this film grossed $1.1 million in the U.S. -- more than some more widely recognized films such as Owning Mahowny, All the Real Girls, Gerry, and Spun (all released in 2003). It also received reviews in mainstream media, even outside "Mormon country" (including Variety and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer). The book Religious Humor in Evangelical Christian and Mormon Culture devotes half a page to explaining a single joke from the film. I would think this film qualifies as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn – Per some of the sources presented herein, specifically [1], [2] and [3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film clearly passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 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.

Cites are in article, information is also updated with proper references as well and this article shall not be deleted please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.179.2 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForeignMeech[edit]

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

The article is sourced entirely to his own promotional sources. A WP:BEFORE search did not yield any coverage in independent sources so this rapper fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN comprehensively. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nomination. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage (see refs and ext. links) is actually promotional stuff, press realeses, listings etc. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. This is a classic case of refbombing. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:22, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Okay, I'll concede on this one. Although he never played at a high level he is an exceptional case due in part to his notable family. His untimely death prompted a lot of 'coulda been a contender'-type coverage which exceeds the level required for a WP:GNG pass. (non-admin closure)

Arild Berg[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the wording: "GNG clearly met and was a prominent footballer in the 90s - it would be an act of sheer folly to delete this article". This doesn't address the failure of WP:NFOOTBALL and the conspicuously offline-only sources in the article look like routine coverage, falling short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no rule that says that sources have to be available online Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomi Markovski, a preference for offline-only sources can impede our ability to weigh them up at AfD. Perhaps if you think GNG is "clearly met" you could find some sources which are more accessible? Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like BBDS says, the lack of online sources hinders our ability to verify GNG. However, I will assume good faith and suggest that a 2 page feature (reference 4 as it currently stands - 'Supertalentet Arild Berg (20) slutter') is indicative of GNG being met, especially when combined with the decent looking article/obituary. Giant Snowman 11:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG appears to be met from the multiple offline Norwegian sources which mention his name specifically in the title, though difficult to verify. This English language dedicated obituary seems to be a clincher as to his notability. That and more could probably be added to improve the article, and a tag to that effect would be appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his article in The Guardian very clearly establishes that he was notable. I will also assume WP:AGF with regards to the online sources that appear to be about this player. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that Guardian article makes it quite clear he is notable. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:10, 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. While charlatans may be notable, there is a consensus here that he lacks notability whether as a charlatan or an academic. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Vishnevsky[edit]

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

Hmm, not quite sure what to say here. All the sources currently in the article are to the the works of the subject himself, which already places close to WP:TNT territory. There are no references in English that I could find. The subject does seem fairly well known in Russia, but much of the coverage in the media concerns his pushing various pseudo-science and WP:FRINGE ideas about panacea healing properties of mushrooms. See the link to the Russian Wikipedia version of the article for more refs (in Russian) of this kind. Russian media being what it is, these ideas often get favorable reception there, which makes it particularly hard to separate what kind of Russian news coverage of the subject constitutes WP:RS from what kind doesn't. As an example, this interview with the subject in Komsomolskaya Pravda is entitled "Magical mushroom 5 times more expensive than gold invigorates and heals cancer." Here is a Russian news article where some scientist tries to push back against the pseudo-scientific claims regarding Chaga mushrooms, but of course it is hard to compete with a promise of a quick cure for cancer. My feeling is that if a WP article about Vishnevsky were to be included here at en-wiki, it would need to be extremely carefully sourced to WP:RS, with the WP:FRINGE pseudo-science aspects covered appropriately. I think that would require rewriting the article from scratch. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a section in his RU-WP about his pushing all that pseudo-science non-sense about fungi as a panacea for oncologic disease. RU-article very implicitly says that his statements are met with critic from both scientists and media alike. EN-article does not have any of those. So, I think I might see what you are trying to do here. I agree that maybe TNT is a good way to go here. Just want to see that others think. Please ping me with replies on this. Meanwhile, I will add some "pseudo-science: disclaimers in the article. Kolma8 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, May be I used words "pseudo-science" too loose here. Unsupported claims will be better. My apologies. Kolma8 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is indeed a PhD mycologist and published around 10 books about mushrooms in Russian. These books belong to popular science and mostly "mainstream", but some of his personal presentations might not (I did not check). He is apparently well known because of his books and appearances in mass media. There are multiple sources about him (and interview with him) in Russian, such as [4], [5], [6], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see that's exactly what I am talking about. The very first source you link[7] is a favorable interview with Vishnevsky (also in Komsomolskaya Pravda) where he pushes the idea that the Chaga mushroom provides an effective cure against COVID-19. This kind of coverage most certainly does not qualify as WP:RS and does not contribute to notability; his views on the matter again appear to belong to the WP:FRINGE domain. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be a charlatan, but still be notable and deserve a page (the ref shows he appears in major Russian newspapers). Is he actually a charlatan? I do not know because some components from fungi can indeed have antiviral properties [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, now. He doesn't just claim that some fungi have antiviral properties. He claims: "But a fact is a fact. The mushroom, of which there are many in Russian groves, turned out to be effective against the new most dangerous virus that swept the planet in 2020." Charlatans and WP:FRINGE views promoters can be notable, yes. But their notability has to be established by coverage in WP:RS. An interview with Vishnevsky in Komsomolskaya Pravda promoting the idea that Chaga mushrooms can cure COVID does not qualify as WP:RS. In relation to medical topics (and especially anything to to with COVID-19), the standard for WP:RS is quite high and it is explained in detail in WP:MEDRS. Although Vishnevsky does have a PhD, it looks like his publications are almost exclusively in polular press and I don't see any citability (in either Russian or Einglish sources) of his work in research literature. If he is notable, his notability would have to be established under WP:GNG or WP:BIO, with significant care to make sure that the sources do qualify as WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure, he is not notable for his research because he simply did not do such research, and that particular comment is indeed concerning. He may be notable only for publishing these books and appearing in newspapers, but my reading of this he is notable enough. I can be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails our notability guidelines for academics. Also clearly fails the fringe notability guidelines. This guy is pushing false claims about how to cure a disease, and the coverage is not at the level we require to show people advocating such fringe ideas are notable. Not every PhD holder who has published multiple works is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for academics. Esculenta (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything that would should he's a notable academic. I also didn't see significant independent coverage in reliable sources to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. It's true that crackpots and charlatans can be WP notable through media coverage, but I'm not even seeing sufficient coverage for that. Simply having a PhD does not make him WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the majority of refs are books written by himself. The remaining refs do not necessarily indicate notability; one's an author profile. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Banks (rapper)[edit]

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

I fail to see how this person meets WP:NMUSIC almost all of the "coverage" is related to his shooting and virtually nothing about his actual music or musical accomplishments. Shootings are sad and draw attention - but it doesn't make gunshot victims notable. CUPIDICAE💕 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under that circumstance, I feel he doesn’t really meet notability as a musician, but maybe as an attack victim? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how NCRIME works. It was only minor local coverage at that, parroted by other agencies. CUPIDICAE💕 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is a clear Delete or Redirect in my eyes. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. No awards, no charted songs, and little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources used in the article, most are song lists, YouTube, or make trivial mention of this artist. This source has some detail, but interviews are primary sources. As well, being the victim of a shooting does not enhance notability as a musician. One certification, per WP:MUSICBIO, but barely contributes to notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ive significantly improved the article Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. Removed the youtube / social media links as references. Ive added better secondary sources from Complex (magazine) and Noisey and XXL (magazine). He has a song that is certified gold on Music Canada and meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) number 2. He has enough reliable sources on the page now to show his coverage so should meet the Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. OrangeSoda1 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OrangeSoda1, so you’ve been here for a minute & know how to articulate your rationale properly, Hell, even quoting WP:HEY, wow, aren’t you a prodigy? Oh well, what can I i say? Welcome to the collaborative project, Your ehhh unique precocious talents would be greatly needed here. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I have blocked OrangeSoda1 as a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TwinTurbo. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non notable musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources nor do they satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His record "Priceless" featuring FB, was certified gold by Music Canada in August 19, 2020.^[1]^[2] Im gonna assume you didnt read the article or you dont know what satisfys the crietrion for WP:MUSICBIO. OrangeSoda1 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~"WP:MUSICBIO 3. Has had a record certified gold higher in at least one country."~~

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody who knows how to write and source an article properly can do it right. There is a potentially credible notability claim here, but the sourcing is problematic — there's entirely too much bad, unreliable sourcing here ("Fomoblog", "Somalispot", Spotify, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, etc.), and the sources which are legitimate and reliable media coverage still hinge entirely on his having been shot rather than on his accomplishing anything relevant to the NMUSIC criteria. Even having a single certified gold is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have had any meaningful press coverage about their music — but if he's ever had that, this article as written still isn't doing a very good job of showing it. Might he be notable? Yes. Is this the article that nails the case to the wall? No. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 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) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bjerk[edit]

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

Technically passes the dubious WP:SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) as he made a single one-minute substitute appearance in a supposedly 'fully professional league' around 17 years ago. The rest of the time he's played at part-time lower division clubs. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OutThere (magazine)[edit]

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

possibly too soon but this publication isn't notable yet, there's no coverage of the magazine itself, just press releases and minor mentions in otherwise unremarkable publications. CUPIDICAE💕:: 20:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but the challenge of course, is it being a publication that is part of a minority LGBT+ community. I would argue that this makes it no less notable (particularly in recognising and championing minority communities on Wikipedia), but perhaps less discussed in mainstream sources. The Professional Publishers Association and Campaign magazine in the UK, I would consider remarkable and verifiable citations. It is also unlikely that any publication, from very notable to less notable will have an article of the publication itself, by a different publication – but more likely to have verifiable articles about the people that run it – evident even in the infinite sources for magazines as notable as Vogue_(magazine). I didn't include those in this article, as those verified citations are congratulatory and potentially mistaken for promotional. By application of the reason cited above, probably nearly everything anything under List_of_LGBT_periodicals or List_of_magazines_in_the_United_Kingdom should be marked for deletion, which would be sad for Wikipedia, as it would be the removal of both minority and publishing history. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sad as it may be, the way for us to argue for the keep of an article is to provide evidence of the subject's coverage in reliable sources, not explain why we don't think said coverage exists. I've seen enough people (not you) spout nonsense about their PAID promotional article "countering systemic bias" and being "about a minority/marginalized subject" to know we should not promote such trends as as acceptable at AfD. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetleAgreed and understood. Just my long-winded way (I'm learning to be shorter, promise!) to say what has already been said under WP:NMEDIA which in itself addresses publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some major award wins. RainbowWikiWarrior (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) from list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions[reply]

RainbowWikiWarrior which major awards would those be? CUPIDICAE💕 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae awards listed under "achievements". A quick google search shows two Professional Publishing Awards for Diversity the other won by Vogue magazine. A search for the campaign magazine publishing awards winners 2020 shows FT and Telegraph also as winners. Seems legit RainbowWikiWarrior (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we have no articles on those awards. CUPIDICAE💕 00:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae ... Campaign_(magazine) and also Professional_Publishers_Association, but yes, good one for AfC! RainbowWikiWarrior (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the award notable. Also every single source in PPA is PPA...so, no. CUPIDICAE💕 00:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merely responding to your question. From a Google news search, it’s clear to me that PPA awards is notable^[3]^[4]^[5] ,perhaps not (yet) here on Wikipedia, but only because it is a badly put together article. I might have a go at it 🧐 though not really my area of interest. We digress, but I stand by my opinion re. the article about the magazine. RainbowWikiWarrior (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Monday morning from bonnie Scotland! I agree with RainbowWikiWarrior, (hence citing those sources in the article). As an editor based in the UK, I corroborate that Campaign and PPA are notable sources, particularly for the publishing industry. Praxidicae, I see you've AfD'd the PPA article, I will help edit/improve that article and discuss it with you/others there! The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have since learnt in my edits on the Professional Publishers Association article that RainbowWikiWarrior's Daily Mail citation is a deprecated source WP:DAILYMAIL. But I'd like to support with further citations from Newsweek^[6] (who call the PPA a "Respected Industry Body") and Business Insider ^[7]. This said, I understand that this discussion is not about the notability of the awards, but of the magazine ... so I will say no more on the awards. It only became related to the discussion under this opinion to Keep. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BubblySnow has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Stricken. Blablubbs|talk 13:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Weak delete. It exists. But it's not enough to meet WP:NMEDIA or GNG. No evidence the awards are significant. No evidence of any in-depth, reliable coverage of its signifciance/importance/impact/reception/etc. WP:NOTACATALOGUE of all press. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC) PS. Modifying the vote ~~to weak delete~~ for now as I am looking more into the awards. At least one seems significant. (discussion below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus. I would argue that under WP:NMEDIA the publication is a newspaper, magazine and journal that through reliable sources, meets two of the stated criteria:

1) That it has produced award-winning work (the notability of the awards being a subject of debate above). I see that the awards in question are not in the , but it seems that unless you're a sports writer, or human rights journalist, your industry award is not notable – (problematic!). There are people at the magazine that have won specific "writing awards" that are not listed, because I feel that's attributed to individual journalists, not the magazine or also its leadership, so it hasn't been included in the article.

2) Is a significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets – in this case it is an List_of_LGBT_periodicals – admitting as I did in my opening statement above, that it seems very few of the publications on this list would be notable under this standard.

All of course, understanding that wider notability is what is in question here. I get it The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleaning Laddy, The notability of the awards is a complex issue. Generally, a rule of thumb holds true in my experience: awards that estabilish a subject's notability are themselves notable, because they received reliable coverage that called them significant etc. I am not seeing that here, but do ping me if you or anyone else stubs one or more of the relevant awards and I'll review the changes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC) PS. I was doing more digging and the PPA award may be notable: [9]. But one notable award isn't enough IMHO to make the recipient notble. Ping me if more awards are claimed to be significant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Sorry, I'm a newbie, so please bear with me. I did a much-needed redraft of the Professional_Publishers_Association article this morning also AfD'd, that includes citations about the PPA awards – from verifiable secondary sources, like Newsweek, Business Insider and CampaignLive. Some of the sources are also already cited here below to help verify the PPA awards (and also the association) as that was up for debate.

Re: Campaign_(magazine) from what I understand it is the leading industry title for Media. The Campaign Publishing Awards is its awards programme, chaired by Spotify^[8] and award winners in 2020 (as well as OutThere) included notable publications like the Financial_Times^[9], The_Daily_Telegraph, Daily_Mail (although this is deprecated source on here – so maybe doesn't help), and The_Guardian^[10]. (All these citations are by Campaign magazine themselves, though, not secondary). Through my (non-Wiki) connected logic, my opinion is that if Wiki recognises these award winners as perennial, verifiable, secondary sources and henceforce notable, wouldn't it then be fair to say that the Campaign Publishing Awards are notable themselves? Then coming full circle, back to the subject of notability for OutThere magazine (which is what is for debate on this page, not the awards), with OutThere magazine being a "publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" under WP:NMEDIA (in this case for the LGBTQ+ community), yet winning an award outside its usual scope that is usually awarded to industry giants, would that not constitute or at least support the magazine being notable? Just my two cents. I am also aware we could then go on to ask what makes OutThere "significant" as a niche market publication, but then we'll be here forever, and frankly I'm quite ready to move on. :) The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus From my research, OutThere won 2 PPA awards, one in 2013 for its launch and then it returned later in 2020 to win when it was more established. On the PPA awards website, it was also nominated as a finalist in 4 other categories, including Brand of the Year, Editor of the Year, Covid Response Initiative of the Year, Designer of the Year - again, against some notable mainstream publications.

- For its Campaign Publishing Awards/Campaign magazine, I've described above. It was nominated in 2 other categories as well – Business Leader of the Year (against the Financial Times); and Brand of the Year.

- For the Travel Media Awards (I understand the awards is owned by APL media that run National_Geographic in the UK), OutThere won for "Consumer Publication of the Year – Online", going up against the BBC,Lonely_Planet, The_Daily_Telegraph, Suitcase_(magazine), so again by my reckoning, this niche LGBTQ+, minority publication, beat four mainstream titles. I didn't say all of this in the article, because I felt that this is congratulatory and maybe mistaken for promotional/advert. As for this Travel Media Award's notability, I'll have to research that! I'll try do that tonight. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus If it's any help while you're looking into awards, I've just seen that in 2020, the Campaign Publishing Awards changed its name from the British Media Awards, but still run by Campaign magazine. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Also, the The_Sunday_Times has called the Travel Media Awards one of two of the "most prestigious awards in travel journalism". The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cleaning Laddy: Thank you. I find your arguments convincing (that the publication won enough major awards to be notable). I suggest you add links and redirects to the organizations giving them (in the article text) and try to add sources found to the relevant articles, so that future editors will know those awards are notable (and perhaps some of those awards need their own articles?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thank you. I will. Just for clarity before I spend more time finessing this article. It's a "Keep" from you? I would also appreciate your review, perhaps after I have added the citations, to ensure that it remains neutral. And good point re. pages on the awards, I'll add it to my list of to-dos. Thanks in advance! The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous arguments have displayed notability. If it is in fact a TOOSOON case, then Draftify, but not delete.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HASREFS I have done more work (and reading of guidelines) to establish notability in this article. My closing arguments as follows.

Under WP:NMEDIA, OutThere magazine is considered notable because it satisfies one or more (two) of the following criteria:

1) WP:MULT It has produced award-winning work – full (and lengthy) arguments above for all four of the awards won over a timeframe of 7 years. Each are indeed notable and despite the magazine being niche media, it has won against some leading titles.

2) WP:NPERIODICAL It is indeed a "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets (LGBTQ+)". To demonstrate significance in the LGBTQ+ market/community/tourism, I have added the following –

- Considered an "Essential Resource for LGBTQ+ community"

- It created the Thai government's LGBTQ+ tourism outreach programme "Go Thai Be Free" and the first ever LGBTQ+ travel education event in South East Asia.

- It is a media partner of, and their editor serves on the board of the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association, "world's leading travel trade association for LGBTQ+ tourism"

- GIBS, the Gordon Institue of Business Science considers it a "leading luxury and experiential travel magazine for gay men" and OutThere is used as a significant source in the writer's academic research on LGBTQ+ tourism

3) Is it TOOSOON?

- WP:CONTIN The magazine has been publishing and in print for 11 years under one owner – which is a long time for a periodical and been a notable award title-holder for 7 years. There have been continuous notable events (award wins) through its lifetime

The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added another resource. In a book written by a Senior Fellow of Massey_College,_Toronto University_of_Toronto, the magazine is considered "a material player in the advancement of LGBTQ rights." The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 20:51, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InMoment[edit]

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

Promo, fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete This page is covered in citation needed templates, and appears to be written like the front page of its website rather than a proper encyclopedia article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be a Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page has a past history of WP:COI nurture; I removed some of the promotional text but what remains is still a summary of routine company announcements, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The firm's main XI product was among 14 recipients of an industry award recently ([10]) but neither this nor anything else found in searches is sufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Goss[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording: "probably best to go through afd as there is some coverage. i would support draftifying" The PROD said: "Fails WP:NFOOTY, no evidence of sustained non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG (the three articles Daily Record articles are local 'Galloway News' articles hosted on the DR website)" Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftily - fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Giant Snowman 21:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree tghat he does not meet notability requirements as he has not played at a high enough level or met requirements in some other way. Dunarc (talk) 23:28, 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 Userfy to User:Gabinho/Paul Popoaia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Popoaia[edit]

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

Nothing found on ItsRugby or Super-Liga that would give presumed notability under WP:NRU. The article contains 2 pieces of in-depth coverage from non-independent sources which do not count towards WP:GNG. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in the most recent international squad but the game was cancelled due to COVID. With no scheduled games in the near future that would allow him to pass WP:NRU it seems its a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Could potentially be draftifyed but the page has been in main space for over a year. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request userfication for this article. Can anyone help me do this? (Gabinho^>:) 07:14, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Roșu[edit]

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

According to ItsRugby and Super-Liga, he does not meet WP:NRU. Coverage found consists entirely of passing mentions in squad announcements and match reports so no indication of meeting WP:GNG either. In addition, the 4 references in the article are all just name checks as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in the most recent international squad but the match was cancelled due to COVID. With no scheduled games in the near future that would allow him to pass WP:NRU it seems a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Could potentially be draftifyed until notable but has been in main space for just under a year. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request userfication for this article. Can anyone help me do this? (Gabinho^>:) 07:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 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) 00:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Banks (musician)[edit]

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

This article concerns an Australian guitarist. BEFORE searches do not return significant coverage that would indicate that this person meets GNG or any more specific notability criteria such as NMUSIC. The article is also written in a fairly promotional tone which further supports the concerns about lack of notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After nominating, I discovered that there was a prior AFD regarding this article back in 2008, when notability guidelines for musicians were more liberal. It wasn't linked in the talk page but I just found it. I do not think it changes my conclusion re notability (as the guidelines in NMUSIC appear stricter today) but wanted to flag in the interests of transparency.DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any demonstration of passing notability. Contrary to what was asseted back in 2009, just because you have performed publicly in more than one country does not mean you are a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is clearly a non-notable. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any suitable IRS via a Google search, and only 1 via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers, which I have added to the page to give it the best chance of survival. But I think it still clearly fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 06:12, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Aure[edit]

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

Lacks clearly WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do we know for certain if Hong Kong First Division League was fully professional when Aure played for them in 09/10? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone:, The Hong Kong First Division League was fully pro until 2014, when it became the second tier instead of the top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NFOOTBALL comfortably. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NFOOTY with the Hong Kong league games JW 1961 Talk 20:52, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pria Viswalingam[edit]

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

Does not have any citations, does not meet Wikipedia's standards. This BLP also contains wrong capitalizations. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator): I started this article in 2006 as an admittedly poorly-referenced microstub, I see it has now gotten a little out of control, with dozens of additions by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts over 15 years, which given the effusive wording some are probably connected contributors. I don't think there are any notability issues – Viswalingam is a well-regarded and prolific filmmaker and former television presenter on a national network. There is significant coverage of some of his work, particularly of the documentary series Decadence. I'm a little hesitant to throw WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP in here, as clearly the article has been tagged as unreferenced for far too long, but surely "wrong capitalization" is easily surmountable/fixable and a pointless argument for deletion. I will, however, undertake to prune down the article, make sure it's all referenced, and keep a closer eye on it in future. --Canley (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National Library of Australia has Biographical cuttings file on him. Online sources covering him and his work include [11] [12] and [13]. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a bunch of references (most offline, found via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspapers). The page looks good to me now and certainly satisfies GNG. Cabrils (talk) 06:38, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Indian Rajya Sabha elections[edit]

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

Article on an election two years into the future. Apparently 'not a candidate' for speedy, so let's try AfD. Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be early, but CBALL allows articles for future events like 2026 Winter Olympics or 2024 United States Senate elections, as long as they are almost certain to happen and concrete preparations are underway. Borderline premature but not for long.[14] • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article already shows results for an election that hasn't taken place. And nothing in it, or in the source cited, says that this election definitely will take place at the time mentioned. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian upper house elections happen on staggered fix terms with at least 10 seats scheduled for 2023, barring an asteroid strike.[15] The content issue with the infobox is a common editor mistake with copying from existing articles, a basic WP:SOFIXIT. The question should be whether there is enough verifiable information yet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a scheduled event almost certain to take place, so it's not a WP:CRYSTALBALL failure. Needs fixing rather than deleting if there are issues. Number 5 7 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as articles about next elections are often kept and edited. There is useful information to be gained about the next election. We can fill in the results once it happens.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, plus it's useful knowledge to have access to for those interested in elections and already being discussed in Indian media.^[11]^[12]

References

^ https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=Priceless%20Robin%20Banks
^ https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=Priceless%20Robin%20Banks&_gp_date=2020-08-18%2C2020-08-19
^ Greep, Monica. "Edward Enninful thanks Vogue team behind Meghan Markle's 'Forces For Change' issue - but says 'moments of recognition' are 'bittersweet' after he became the first black person to be named Editor of The Year at PPAs". Daily Maill.
^ McIlheney, Barry. "The PPA show must go on: magazine Oscars turn 40". Campaign (magazine).
^ Donato, Al. "Meghan Markle's Vogue Issue Wins U.K. Press Diversity Award". Huffington Post.
^ Royston, Jack. "Meghan Markle 'Honored' by Award for 'Vogue' Issue Featuring Greta Thunberg". Newsweek.
^ Friel, Mikhalia. "Meghan Markle's British Vogue issue has won a diversity award a year after it was criticised for not including enough white people on the cover". Business Insider.
^ Staff. "Spotify's Rakesh Patel to chair Campaign Publishing Awards". Campaign magazine.
^ Staff. "Telegraph, FT and TTG top winners at 2020 Campaign Publishing Awards".
^ Staff. "Mail and Guardian honoured as Campaign Publishing Awards kick off". Campaign magazine.
^ Service, Tribune News. "No Rajya Sabha poll this time to spoil Adhir Ranjan's party". Tribuneindia News Service.
^ DelhiFebruary 18, Kaushik Deka New. "Why the BJP's Rajya Sabha majority is safe till July 2022". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:28, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Way to Heaven[edit]

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

No references. Flag for this problem is a decade old. RobP (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am finding no reviews or coverage of this film at all. The only results with searches are sales pages, its IMDB page, and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources- for example it has no entry at Rotten Tomatoes, does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject's own website plus the unreliable IMDb is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:05, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Mills[edit]

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

Non notable adult movie actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR, or WP:ANYBIO. A before search turns up self published and user generated sources, which we don’t consider to be reliable. I believe this is way WP:TOOSOON as his career is still relatively young. Furthermore WP:GNG & WP:BASIC aren’t satisfied either. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it relevant and still in development, the actor has been in his professional career for years, I think that if he needs to improve, but we cannot discriminate against him because he is American, in addition, the actor is created in Polish and Spanish. Greetings to all, I hope you take my recommendations. If we talk about relevance, let's look at this entry from Thomas Petrou American internet celebrity and entrepreneur, known for his TikTok and YouTube channels.--Secretsgenius (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought there would at least be some coverage, but per a BEFORE I couldn’t find any outside of StraightUpGayPorn, which I seriously doubt is an RS. —Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got a splash of gay press coverage for a tweet he sent about performer pay. It's 1E at best and not very deep. Aside from awards rosters and other trivial mentions, I'm not finding other independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep and remove this item without coverage, Guillermo Rodríguez Melgarejo and Richard Holzer. Secretsgenius (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your “keep” rationale, Secretgenius? It would help your position if you posited an argument. I also don’t see how Holzer and Melgarejol are related to this AfD. —Kbabej (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about article x? comes under arguments to avoid at AfD. The Richard Holzer article already cites reliable source coverage. Coverage for Guillermo Rodríguez Melgarejo is easy enough to find, typical for WP:CLERGY situations. Reliable coverage for Joey Mills is very thin however. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stay~~ I am very curious that some Wikipedians believe that actors and pornos actresses see in this article without relevance when it is exactly this that makes me believe then that there is GayVN Awards, no intention in any way to root out the portal for pornography and homosexuality in all Wikipedias. Secretsgenius (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate keep/stay !vote. Winning a porn award, straight or gay, is no longer enough to establish notability absent non-trivial support from good quality references. Since PORNBIO was deprecated in 2019, AVN and GayVN Award winners alike have been removed from Wikipedia. In fact, a few gay performers have been saved at AfD by reliable gay media not shunning porn like mainstream press sources. Joey Mills gets some RS coverage, but not enough yet. • Gene93k (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC

commentary Because it will be that I read a lot of homophobia on this board, or is it that they are managing it at will, look at the pornography as well as the gay artists are not simply notorious, the community is giving the best of each one, please instruct yourself before giving your opinion. On the other hand you mention that the winners of the AVN and GayVN awards have been eliminated from Wikipedia, when that is not the case there I am reading them on enwiki. Secretsgenius (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretsgenius: Asserting homophobia or other bad intent among Wikipedia editors doesn't make it so. AfD debates are preserved. The pornography WikiProject maintains a list of deletion debates. Among these debates, can you point out where the editors argued from an anti-LGBT bias? As for AVN versus GayVN, my rough count from article histories since 2019 gives about 60 AVN Award and about 30 GayVN Award winners deleted at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for my statement about press coverage, please note the keep rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armond Rizzo. Rizzo won the same GayVN Award as Mills, but Rizzo was kept due to his coverage by Out magazine and PinkNews. Another recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Payne (actor), where Payne was kept due to reliable sources like The Advocate attesting to his notability. At the same time, mainstream straight press tends to shun porn altogether, an issue that Wikipedia has noted for almost 20 years. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k:, @Celestina007:, @Kbabej: You shouldn't be thinking about deleting the license on gay porn because I know well that on Wikipedia in Polish, Italian, Spanish, Czech, among other languages, the pages have not given much trouble, and the notoriety of Joey Mills investigated and discovered that Wikidata It houses very relevant and true data about the actor so I don't like the story that the boy is nobody ok. I put back examples where there are articles on Wikipedia in English without any kind of media coverage, rather they carry promotional references and I don't see anyone fighting to eliminate those entries and ask for more accreditation Example: KREEPA. Secretsgenius (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are far too poor (other than Out, but that is just mentions) to justify keeping the article. I've argued for several gay porn articles to be kept, but there needed to be some decent sourcing, at the very least. For now, there isn't any. If Mills gets some better coverage (which is possible, especially since he's still an active performer) the article can be recreated. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 18:37, 12 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. Consensus is to delete, the sole keep vote doesn't provide anything to suggest either GNG or any SNG is satisfied. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Axel Andreassen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording "meets NFOOTY, pro games". This is a factual error, article fails WP:NFOOTY as this player's stint in the top men's division of Norwegian football took place well before the league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained non-routine coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines for footballers (considering how broad they are this means you really, really are not notable) and also fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:13, 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. Consensus is to delete, the sole keep vote doesn't provide anything to suggest either GNG or any SNG is satisfied Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arild Andersen (footballer)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording "meets NFOOTY, pro games for three clubs". This is a factual error, article fails WP:NFOOTY as this player's games in the top men's division of Norwegian football took place well before the league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained non-routine coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALl. Giant Snowman 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and our football notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:14, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Aga, Jr.[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording: "lots of pro games". Still fails WP:NFOOTY as these games came well before the Norwegian men's football league was a 'fully professional league'. Also little evidence of non-routine coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet GNG given level of coverage. Giant Snowman 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also disagree with this assessment, did you even bother trying to analyse the citations properly? For instance, the very first source is a newspaper called Aftenposten, But then the first citation is from 1985, so searching for it on their website yielded nothing, but that does not mean the source does not exist. I am going on some faith that it does and there are two linked sources later there. So on overall, I will say he passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:15, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pål Henning Albertsen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the rationale "pro games, very clear GNG meet". The 5 pro games took place before the Norwegian men's league was a 'fully professional league' and the vast majority of this player's appearances came deep in the bowels of the local semi-pro circuit. Little evidence of non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if this fails WP:GNG please can you give an example of an article that passes? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears GNG is met given level of coverage, which renders any failure of NFOOTBALL moot. Giant Snowman 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a go at working out some of the citations, it's harder to workout without the ISBN, but it seems to be newspaper reports and archived material. But I feel there is enough to show this does in fact pass GNG. Although I feel the article and sources need to be improved, I don't see this as a delete. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously notable, see here, here and here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:15, 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) 18:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Akerjordet[edit]

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

Prod removed with the wording "old article where sourcing and wording could have been alot better". Fails WP:NFOOTY as the Norwegian men's football league was not 'fully professional' during this player's participation. Also fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a newspaper search did not yield any decent coverage at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the Norwegian players up for deletion should be kept but I genuinely could not find any decent coverage on this guy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Aune[edit]

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

PROD disputed with "loads and loads of pro games". But the top Norwegian men's football league is only listed as a 'fully professional league' from 2001. This player was active when the league was predominantly part-time, so fails WP:NFOOTY, also fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't know who wrote 2001 or on what basis, and this guy played for Rosenborg et al. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See recent discussion/consensus at WT:FPL Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Speculative nomination, clearly fully pro player and clubs at the time, most of the league was too. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence for this assertion that most of the league was 'fully pro' in the 1990s you can add it to the ongoing research here. Until then I fear any speculation might be on your part. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - featured prominently here, here, here and several other places Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'featured prominently' in some WP:ROUTINE match previews etc. in his local paper. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't speak the language but the sources found by Spiderone would all suggest to me that GNG is met. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Bencsik[edit]

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

Passes WP:NFOOTY after two brief substitute appearances in a supposedly 'fully professional league' six years ago. The rest of his career has been at the lower semi-pro levels, fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 29 mins of professional football is insufficient when WP:GNG is failed Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Card football[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything that gets close to meeting the GNG. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 12 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 Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Daniel (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd[edit]

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

Non-notable film failing WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Notability tagged since 2017. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge per JPL below. ~~Fails NFILM and GNG.~~ Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge - Kolma8 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:NFILM, WP:GNG, and WP:SNOW. A film screened once is not a notable film. I am especially wary of a Unitarian, second-Jesus propaganda film. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is inherently not unitarian. It fully asserts to divinity of Jesus Christ. This film is very much an outgrowth of The Book of Mormon. It was not "screened once", it was released to one screen and screened dozens of times a week for 3 years. It also has been distributed in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joseph Smith Memorial Building which is the main building where this was shown (in the Legacy Theatre). Unlike the later film Meet the Mormons This one was not commercially released.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnpacklambert. Mr248 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:29, 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. Daniel (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatrin Krajka[edit]

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

I fail to see any sources estabilishing notability. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 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 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There don’t seem to be secondary RS to cover the subject. —Kbabej (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable musician who fails WP:Music.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:30, 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 merge to The Western Canon. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Resentment[edit]

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

This page about a concept in the humanities fails the WP:GNG, as it shows no sign of independent or secondary sourcing. The article's references consist entirely of primary "scholarship" pushing a dubious historiographic conceit. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge to The Western Canon, as the article on that book, which is where Bloom expounds the idea, only brushes upon it briefly. The idea attracted attention (one presumes largely negative from one side an laudatory from the other— this is Harold Bloom we're talking about) but while there are a number of scholarly hits on the idea, it doesn't appear to be something that others took and ran with. Mangoe (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator I would be fine with this merge, and even a redirect, but I'm not willing to dredge through the article to find salvageable nuggets, myself. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloom's term is the subject of continuing scholarly comment, analysis, and debate. This makes it a notable concept separate from the book where it was first introduced. It easily passes the requirements of GNG in that even a cursory Google Scholar search discloses significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. WP:BEFORE seems to have been truncated in this regard for this nomination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do any of the linked sources meet WP:SIGCOV? What I see are passing mentions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not passing mentions, or else I would not have characterized them as "significant". They are scholarly articles and the Krajca and BØrch articles in particular are entirely about engaging with Bloom's ideas. The irony that Bloom's pejorative label for post-modernistic literary critique only seems to have generated further post-modernist critique is likely not lost on anyone but the opacity of such writing does not obscure entirely that Bloom's idea does meet GNG beyond its original mention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the Krajca and BØrch pieces again, neither of them engages more than superficially with the term/concept "Schools of Resentment". The question for this AfD is not "does any of the critical reception of Bloom name-check the article title" but rather "is there significant, reliably sourced coverage of the topic that an article can be written based on independent sources?" The answer is, no. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Western Canon: Keep: I actually think this is genuinely borderline between a keep and a merge and redirect to The Western Canon, but I am leaning ever-so-slightly towards keep. I do not agree that subsequent engagement with this idea has been limited to name checks and passing mentions. It's in the title and main framing of some academic articles like this one, the author of this book explicitly identifies it as the main focus of an entire section of the book, searching in newspaper archives (paywalled, but I'll be happy to share sources on request) I found articles that deal primarily with this idea in newspapers from Colombo to Melbourne to Edmonton over several decades. There's enough to pass GNG and satisfy WP:NEO. But here's where I'm uncertain. It is very often discussed in the context of discussions about The Western Canon; usually it's a big part of that discussion, but is still situated within or closely connected to a broader discussion of that work. I could probably be convinced that it is a neologism that should be a big part of that book's page, rather than existing as a separate standalone page. - Astrophobe (talk)
Re: it is a neologism that should be a big part of that book's page, rather than existing as a separate standalone page - exactly that. It is AFAIK only discussed in the context of The Western Canon (book); I've gone looking for central concepts of other philosophical or critical works that have been spun off into their own articles, but the only one I've found so far is the Original position which has received much more and also higher level discussion than School of resentment. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair point. I wouldn't object at all if either keep or merge was a result of this AfD, I think this is one situation where it's not obvious how to best follow policy. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at the sourcing again and I am convinced by the argument that, if any in-depth discussion of the school of resentment is pretty much always a subset of a larger discussion about the The Western Canon, then a discussion of it belongs on that page. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Western Canon per the analysis of the available sourcing above, and the general idea that we write about what things are rather than what they're called. "Schools of Resentment" would be a viable entry in a hypothetical Glossary of Cultural and Literary-Theoretic Traditionalism, but it seems a poor topic for an encyclopedia article, whereas discussing the influence of a book is a good thing for an encyclopedia article on that book to do. Keeping it within the article on the book might also help keep a lid on synthesis (Similar critical arguments have been made by others, without necessarily using the term...). XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Leftists want to censor and hide any information that exposes their ulterior motives. typical. Matthew 10:47 Central time 2/10/21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6042:B:9C4:5D98:8C14:14C5 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Love it or hate it, it is an important and notable notion of Harold Bloom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to The Western Canon per comments by User:XOR. This is unlikely to grow but plausible search term. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The difficulty with merging is the The Western Canon is a slender article consisting of little more than chapter headings. Perhaps merge the other way? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps from a content standpoint that would be easier, but The Western Canon is a clear Notability pass based on reviews, while the Notability of the "School of Resentment" is dubious at best. So regardless of which text an editor starts with for the Merge, the redirect should point to the book title and not the other way around. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Henrik Andreassen[edit]

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

Meets WP:FOOTY after playing 29 minutes as a substitute in one game in a supposed 'fully professional league' 11 years ago. The rest of his career has taken place in the part-time lower divisions. No evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jinyu Liu[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the qualifications of WP:NSCHOLAR. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article fulfills at least three of the criteria for notability and the article should not be deleted. Srsval (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Onel5969: WP:NSCHOLAR criteria 4 is "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". The subject is "Distinguished Guest Professor at Shanghai Normal University", which is one of Shanghai's three Key Universities. The point of having criteria is to avoid having to arbitrate each article through AfD. When a person meets the criteria, as this subject clearly does, it is abusive to bring it to AfD. Will you please consider withdrawing this AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagishsimon, I don't believe that's a named chair, and I don't think guest professors are the same category, but I'll ping an editor who is far more experienced in evaluating hairline claims like this than I am, so, David Eppstein, hate to bug you, but what are your thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the record, I don't think that WP:PROF#C4 applies here. The Distinguished Guest Professor at Shanghai Normal University designation was temporary (2014-2019), as the article itself indicates. For WP:PROF#C4 to apply, a named professorship appointment has to be permanent. However, this appointment still carries considerable prestige and does contribute towards WP:PROF#C1. The GScholar citability data here here is also more impressive than it might appear from the first glance. In a field like classics we'd normally expect extremely low citations, and there to see a fairly recent (2009) recearch item with 170 citations already is fairly unusual. I have added three published reviews of Liu's book to the article. As the article indicates, she received a 5-year New Directions Fellowship (2011–2014) from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (and it's clear that this fellowship is treated as a big deal in the field from the way it is announced [16]). She also gave several named lectures, including the keynote address of the 2020 annual meeting of the Association of Ancient Historians (I added a ref to the article), and several others. There is a detailed profile interview with her in the editorial blog of the Society for Classical Studies. This page, SCS Blog, explaons that the blog "is edited and overseen by the SCS Communication Committee" of the Society for Classical Studies. So it qualifies as WP:RS under WP:NEWSBLOG. Overall, I believe there is more than sufficient coverage here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1, especially considering the field. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Mellon Foundation fellowship is extremely distinguished in academic fields in the humanities, so both this and the Distinguished Guest Professorship fulfil WP:NSCHOLAR 2. As Tagishsimon says, it is abusive to flag pages for deletion - particularly those for women of colour - when they obviously meet at least one of the criteria. Named chair is not the only criterion for notability in academia Eritha (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm insufficiently familiar with Chinese academic titles to have a useful opinion on the Chinese distinguished visitor position. For this sort of subject we tend to judge by books and their reviews (WP:AUTHOR) rather than journal papers and their citations (WP:PROF#C1). Her book Collegia Centonariorum has five published reviews, and if those were split over two books I'd probably already have decided my opinion as a keep or weak keep. She does have another book, but it's in Chinese, so there's a language barrier to finding reviews. Does the Chinese academic literature do book reviews? Are there published reviews of this one? I don't know but it would be helpful to find out. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Liu's faculty profile page and her interview at the Association of Ancient Historians indicate, her most significant work is translational, related to the Ovid project. As she also explains in that interview, the field of classics in China is just developing, with many classical Latin and Roman texts not translated yet, methods for doing that not yet developed, and even conventions for translating specific terms not yet adopted. As a research field, classics still mainly conducted in Western languages. I don't think that in this situation WP:AUTHOR is the correct default criterion to look to. We are not limited to using citations when evaluating WP:PROF#C1 where other significant indicators are available. That's certainly the case here, with a prestigious guest named professorship (even if it arguably doesn't satisfy WP:PROF#C4 by itself), a prestigious fellowship, a keynote address at an annual meeting of a major scholarly society, etc. In mathematics, if an academic gave a plenary address at an annual meeting of the American Mathematical Society, that would already be enough to indicate notability. Here we have considerably more. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For what it's worth, her CV[17] mentions a review (in Chinese) of her second book as: 张治，《南方都市报阅读周刊》9/21/2014. GoogleTranslate translates this as: Zhang Zhi, "Southern Metropolis Daily Reading Weekly", 9/21/2014 Nsk92 (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found that Zhang Zhi review online[18]. And here is the GoogleTranslate version[19]. The review is fairly substantive. I have added a ref to it to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google Scholar and found this article on CNKI. It's paywalled, but based on the abstract it seems to be some kind of report from a seminar about her textbook 罗马史研究入门 (Introduction to the Study of Roman History). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. If there is someone proficient in Chinese among the AfD participants, it'd be good to add this ref to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish keep. The WP:NPROF C1 case is a little weak on its own -- citations are light, although I do take the keynote address fairly seriously. (I'm not convinced by the C5 or C2 cases other editors have made.) There's also an WP:NAUTHOR case, with one book having several reviews, and a second book that shows some signs of being taken seriously. The combination of the two brings me over to keep, essentially per Nsk92. @Eritha and Tagishsimon: your comments read as if you believe Onel5969 to be acting in bad faith. Although I am !voting to keep, I certainly don't think this was an unreasonable nomination, and I suggest that you might wish to strike portions of your comments. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything about the motivation behind the original nomination, but it can be in perfectly good faith and still be part of the persistent and - yes - abusive pattern whereby pages for women academics are far more likely than those for men to be nominated for deletion, and those for women of colour even more likely, even where they clearly meet one or more WP:NSCHOLAR criteria, or where they are more borderline but could be initially flagged for notability rather than moving straight to a deletion nomination. This does not have to be due to conscious bias on the part of each/every/any individual nominator, but nonetheless, it's a pattern that exists and is a problem. Eritha (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Putting aside WP:PROF (though I think there are several strong arguments that she meets it), the five reviews of her book on Collegia are easily enough coverage to meet the GNG. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep more or less per the same reasoning as Russ Woodroofe: WP:AUTHOR, the (now six) reviews of one book, and the evidence presented above of possible reviews or at least serious attention for her other Chinese-language book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have a consensus to keep, so please could the deletion tags be removed and this discussion closed? Srsval (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srsval: the discussion generally runs for 7 days. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:28, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Aligo[edit]

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

Passes WP:FOOTY due to a single 14-minute substitute appearance in a supposed 'fully professional league' nearly 20 years ago. The rest of his soccer career was in the part-time lower divisions. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as an example of where notability guidelines rub poorly up against each other. NFOOTY is a bit of a meme, and permits functionally undeletable permastubs for people with parodically slim claims to notability like this. Ultimately, while I on the whole take the "passing one of GNG/SNG gives you a free pass" position, I think it fails for things like the weakest forms of sports notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shåresh Ahmadi[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTY due to a single 15-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' 11 years ago. Has played lower division, semi-pro football ever since and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as an example of where notability guidelines rub poorly up against each other. NFOOTY is a bit of a meme, and permits functionally undeletable permastubs for people with parodically slim claims to notability like this. Ultimately, while I on the whole take the "passing one of GNG/SNG gives you a free pass" position, I think it fails for things like the weakest forms of sports notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"permits functionally undeletable permastubs for people with parodically slim claims to notability" Thanks, that gave me a good chuckle! I sense another RfC on the subject coming up shortly and we'll need input from outside editors to finally get this embarrassing nonsense struck out. Hopefully see you there. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 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 02:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Geek News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources available and not notable. I searched for additional sources and was unable to find any. From what I can tell the website is no longer in existence and the episodes aren't on iTunes, but the content is still available on YouTube (all episodes appear to be over ten months old or older). There isn't really an article we could merge this with either because the only relevant article would probably be Babelgum. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists. But it's not enough to meet WP:NMEDIA or GNG. No evidence the awards are significant. No evidence of any in-depth, reliable coverage of its signifciance/importance/impact/reception/etc. WP:NOTACATALOGUE of all press. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their "official website" seems to be for another company/service called Penny Stocks and their YouTube channel hasn't uploaded anything in almost a year. Additionally, the last significant content addition to the article was almost 2 years ago. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 16:52, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Basit Agouda[edit]

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

Another which technically meets WP:FOOTY after a single, 10-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' five years ago. Has played lower division semi-pro stuff before and since, no evidence of any WP:GNG level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10-minutes play in one game should never be considered enough to make anyone notable. Why is one game play even considered enough, when actors need at least 2 notable films that they were in, with the further limiting factor of significant roles, which we are not even trying to determine for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers to score a double hundred in their hundredth Test[edit]

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

A list that does not meet WP:LISTN and has no navigational purpose as it only contains Joe Root and there is no absolute guarantee that any other cricketers will be joining him any time soon. The content is already covered adequately in Root's article and I don't see that there would be a much of a case for turning this into a redirect either. This borders on being a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation anyway and we do not need an article on every single interesting cricket statistic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per WP:NOT and WP:LISTN. Already covered in List of cricketers who scored a century in their hundredth Test. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely a non-notable intersection, and I can't see the point of List of cricketers who scored a century in their hundredth Test either. A player scoring 100 in their 100th game for their country is a cute coincidence but I don't see how it is encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear case of stats for stats sake. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear case of delete here. HawkAussie (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of one is not notable enough to meet WP:NLIST. And not a particularly useful redirect to the hundred in the hundredth Test article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even a list, as only one person is on it. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 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 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) 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of Guys[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 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) 08:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Göztepe İhsan Kurşunoğlu Anadolu Lisesi[edit]

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

Notablity Robingunes (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources in article, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Fails GNG, ORGCRIT for corp, nothing in the article relates to NBUILD. There are lots of directory listings, and a student that found fame, but neither of these show notability for the subject. This is a normal school, nothing notable. If someone finds an alternative search term, please ping me. No objection to a redirect if a consensus target is agreed. // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cralosophus[edit]

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

Possible hoax? I can't find anything about this animal and "Cralosophus jackforsteriensis" returns zero results across every search engine that I have tried. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - taxonomy isn't a specialty of mine, but I can find no references which support this. If valid refs can be shown, then ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone finds something to support this. Mccapra (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- certainly has hoax vibes. If it's real, it's a member of an inherently notable category, but neither my nor the nominator's search can find anything for that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of citations doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of sources or any record of a description. Can't quite figure out what the author is up to - on the one hand, valid articles on newly described species [20] - on the other hand, random addition of 2021 "synonyms" for common species [21]... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, and "jackforsteriensis" is suspect.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lol, it does seem to be a hoax. @Theinsectencyclopedia: do you have anything to say about it? Tercer (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Jones[edit]

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

This article fails NSPORT and GNG. Tagged for notability since 2018.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not appear in a regular season game with either team or even make the final roster, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet GNG Tatupiplu'^talk 12:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:38, 12 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. The one "keep" opinion makes no sense. Sandstein 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon (sport)[edit]

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

This page is an un-referenced and non-notable page relating to people getting hit in the head with a ball. Additionally, as per WP:NAD, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clifton9 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - term used in other sports too in an article that has a source.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and only one external link. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that this falls under WP:NAD. Also, SportsDictionary.com is 404/suspended. UPDATE: I have not found this term either in Wiktionary nor in a basic Google search. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:08, 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.

Common enough term, but fails the if its not American, it doesn't exist test. Hardly worth an article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Hurwitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable musician. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Only reasonable one is a short Variety piece but one is not enough. Claims a hit on the Hot Singles Chart but a search for that came up empty. Soft delete restoration. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates the terms of use. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Papageorgiou[edit]

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

This was initially a PROD by User:Geschichte due to WP:NFOOTBALL failure. It was then removed with the comment According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

Putting NFOOTBALL to one side, I am struggling to find anything to prove that Papageorgiou can pass WP:GNG. All the sources cited are primary and a WP:BEFORE search reveals little better. The best two sources that I could find were this and this, neither of which we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thousands of women can be notable in this sport, but not Australian league players with very few games. Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By that argument, we should make an article for every player to have played in Andorra's Primera Divisió as it would be racist not to. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:59, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Taylor (disambiguation)[edit]

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

A disambiguation page is not required: the primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD was reverted by @Nigej: with edit summary: rm PROD. see WP:ONEOTHER. In my view "there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future". WP:ONEOTHER goes on to say "it may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page." The page has been tagged for 4 months during which time no other uses have come to light. (Pages like this are routinely subject to PROD and deleted as uncontroversial.) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not require a page on this wiki. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough here for a disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hatnote should be sufficient for this case (see WP:HATCHEAP). IMO, DAB pages should have at least 3 or more articles listed in them. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 19:55, 13 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 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Wolfson[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Comments from him are are not coverage about him. Sourced to primary. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, comments about him (and references) do not support notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to notable as a lawyer, and the coverage of his role as an activist falls far short of the multiple significant sources in independent, reliable secondary sources. It is less than clear that any of the sources used are fully independent of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 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. The best arguments are from Bearcat and Beccaynr, who are diametrically opposed to each other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Devine[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Comments form her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Examination of references strongly indicates this article meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which references specifically? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references present here do not "strongly" indicate that the article meets GNG. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and video clips of her speaking — and the few sources that are actually to real notability-supporting media are not coverage about her, but coverage which merely namechecks her as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is somebody or something else. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG: the sources have to be media coverage which has her as its subject, not just any page you can find on the web that happens to have her name in it. The notability test is not "she did stuff", it's "she got media coverage about the stuff she did" — and none of the sources here are showing that she's passed that test. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My initial research shows Devine has been recognized as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources over time, e.g. Montreal Gazette 2009, CTV News 2011, CTV News 2014, The Globe and Mail 2015, BBC News 2016, Global News 2016, Global News 2016, so there appears to be sufficient coverage of Devine as an expert per WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the essay WP:INTERVIEW, which reasons, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These additional sources cover Devine's advocacy related to the Montreal and Quebec 'pit-bull bans': Global News 2016, TODAY 2017 (also includes discussion of litigation), Toronto Star 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC) (and The Washinton Post, 2016) Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for sources that are about her, not sources that happen to mention or quote her in the process of being about something or somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC appears to anticipate that notability can be derived from extensive coverage over time in multiple independent and reliable sources, and the reasoning of the WP:INTERVIEW essay seems to further support this, particularly when sources quote Devine as an expert, which is a form of commentary about Devine. There appears to be a mix of reporting about Devine's work and her expert opinions; but there is so much coverage, I have asked for assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron to help incorporate and organize the sources, generally help with article cleanup, and assist with French translation if possible. None of the sources that I have reviewed at this point seem to happen to mention Devine as a trivial detail, but instead seek her expert opinion and/or discuss her professional work in the context of the subject being reported, which seems to be reporting about her that supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. For a source to support her notability, she has to be the thing that is getting talked about in that source — getting quoted for soundbite about some other subject is not support for her notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devine is an animal law expert and an attorney, who has been covered extensively by independent and reliable sources due to her expertise and professional work; per GreenC, there are over 500 sources to sort through, and per WP:NEXIST, "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I have listed multiple examples of sources that offer secondary commentary 'about' Devine as an expert by seeking her expertise, not a "soundbite," which supports her notability as an expert, and I have listed examples that discuss her professional work, which is not "some other subject" in the articles, and supports the notability of her professional work; furthermore, additional sources clearly seem likely to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and BASIC. She has been involved in important legislation, is a leading expert in Quebec, has received international coverage. There are over 500 sources listed in a Google News search where reliable sources have sought her out and/or quoted her. Influential and leading expert. GNG does not limit to biographical-oriented sources only (which would be arbitrary), rather it is "significant coverage" and this amount and type of coverage is a significant signal of notability. -- GreenC 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what GreenC just said. I was not convinced before, thinking she only mentioned as the spokesperson for an organization, but they are quoting her words, considering her an expert in her field, so she is notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. This is an example of "the depth of coverage in any given source" not being substantial but "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."--User:Namiba 14:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Namiba and BASIC. She is notable.Jacwizy (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Per Bearcat, many references do not meet WP:RS. The many independent, secondary sources that merely mention the subject are not about the subject, and do not constitute 'significant coverage' as required by WP:BASIC. Bigpencils (talk) 06:52, 12 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 14:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Long[edit]

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

I have searched and haven't found any sources for this person. The only source listed for the article is admittedly self-published. All the evidence I can find is that Long was a minor player in the American Revolution. Reducing this mess of an article to a stub would not fix these fundamental flaws. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG no SIGCOV in multiple RS, family geneology project created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many unreferenced statements in this article. As per above, there is no SIGCOV. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a NN soldier and United Empire Loyalist, whose career differs little from hundreds or even thousands of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 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. Daniel (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Yap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

UPE promotion of non notable business woman. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Bombarded with many sources bu they are largely a mix of minor mentions, primary, PR, routine announcements and listings. None of the "awards" are major. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, delete, of no consequence. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a lot of the links are dead. A lot of other links are simply PR, public relations. No depth for GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 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 redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Daniel (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Yanong[edit]

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

BLP of a Filipina model who doesn’t seem notable to me. She came third in a Big Brother series and has done some other in screen work but nothing that looks significant to me. I’m not sure how reliable some of the sources are either. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are two references that might lend notability. Nonetheless, this is another case of WP:TOOSOON for this starlet. Insufficient references to meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso: Barely any acting stint aside from being a VJ of Myx. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Not notable yet. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:33, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1992–93[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are articles on touring sides for each cricket season. I don't have access to news archives but there would almost certainly be coverage of Pakistan's tour of Australia at that time in national newspapers (there always is), so the claim of non-notability is simply not true. Another option which would be a valid alternative to deletion would be a merge or redirect to 1992–1993 Australian cricket season but that article currently doesn't exist. So as not to undo the good work of cricket editors here I see why this article can't be kept pending that being created. Again, another instance where deletion is a lazy option. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And again, I'll say what I said on other similar nominations. We have a complete series of articles on the official cricket tours, and because there is a complete series, readers (remember them?) can find their way around easily. What is the encyclopaedic merit in seeking to destroy that? Johnlp (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series which is what should have been done in 2007 when this article was created. This was not a tour in any traditional sense of the word, but a tournament. The warm up games warrant a sentence, at best, in the tai-series article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series. Matches on this trip were organised around this tournament. Does not meet criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a clear consensus on to keep or to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's likely that sources can be found to expand article. Otherwise merge with 1992-93 Australian Tri-Series. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again relisted to enable a consensus regarding outcome to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series as per Blue Square Thing, above. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:50, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nofel Izz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Paid promotional article by several declared editors. Earlier versions were even worse--see the talk page--but there is not enough fundamental material to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barren. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one link is possibly notable. Remainder are barren or dead. I hope his oxygen mask saves him. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entrepreneurs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but the five footnotes here aren't solid enough to get him over WP:GNG: one's an unrecoverable dead link, one's an unreliable WordPress blog, and it's not at all clear that once those two are discounted, the remaining three are enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 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 merge to Kansas State University#Campus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens Hall[edit]

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

This article concerns a building that houses academic departments at Kansas State University. The article cites no sources and BEFORE searches return only a small number of articles in Kansas State University's student-run newspaper that even mention the building. Thus, there is no evidence of "significant coverage" that would satisfy GNG and, IMHO, it should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only primary sources, meaning it fails GNG, and the hall is only mentioned in a caption on the Kansas State University page, making a redirect useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above, search brings primary sources only. A lot of returns on Charles Dickens, not Dickens Hall. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable building, though I don't necessarily oppose a redirect if others want it. Smartyllama (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kansas State University#Campus. It only takes 2 minutes to add it's single paragraph to the main article's relevant section. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the target suggested by History DMZ. Either option seems fine. Just as long as the article doesn't stay as is. Since Dickens Hall is clearly not notable enough on it's own to warrant one and it's mentioned in the merge target anyway. So, there might as well be information about it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 12 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. Prior to release, consensus appeared to favor draftification of the article. However, since release, consensus appears to have shifted to keeping the article due to the inclusion of further sourcing. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Java[edit]

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

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production satisfies general notability, and nothing is said about production. Since the film is unreleased, nothing is said about reception. Recommend draftification until film is released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film is releasing in 10 days time. It has significant coverage in media, news and other sources(116.68.96.220 (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Draftify until the release as it might not meet WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Alternatively, delete can be appropriate if draftifying is not an option. Kolma8 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Agreed, draftify this article until after release and more reviews are available. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article has notability and references from notable sources.
Anish Viswa 09:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Movie has released and received reviews from Malayala Manorama - https://www.manoramaonline.com/movies/movie-reviews/2021/02/12/operation-java-malayalam-movie-review.html and The Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/operation-java/movie-review/80882782.cms. There are other references from The Hindu - https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/operation-java-is-a-cyber-crime-thriller-says-director-tharun-moorthy/article33810750.ece and The New Indian Express - https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2021/feb/03/watch--operation-javatrailer-promises-a-thrill-ride-2258690.html . Probably should stay now. Jupitus Smart 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film has now been released and has received secondary coverage such as a full review in The Times of India and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted as it shares so many information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.57.110 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) This is good. This should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.57.110 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Roknipour[edit]

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

The nonnotable footballer supposedly plays at USL League Two which is equivalent to division 4th. The WP:BEFORE was unimpressive, no significant coverage in addition to failing to attain WP:NFOOTY, the instagram account mentioned in the article indicates the person is a non notable singer! This article should not be in Wikipedia. Chiro725 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been some COI edits in the page lately, which when questioned turned out paid editing. Chiro725 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 17 appearances in the USL Championship, which is listed at WP:FPL, confirmed by Soccerway - so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comfortable NFOOTBALL pass as above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prima facie, the article and person in question meets NFOOTBALL pass as above --Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 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 redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the Lehigh Valley[edit]

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

This is an odd list because Leigh Valley is not even in the top 50 metropolitan areas in the United States. All the malls are already available in List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania so I see no reason for this list. Redirect would work fine or reformat the Pennsylvania list to organize it by region. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated the article because it has been edited recently. Otherwise I would have redirected the article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 06:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania. No need for a list of malls in a more defined geographical area. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania as per above. Patently obvious. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania as per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lehigh Valley#Retail shopping which is a better target, and currently contains a list of shopping malls in an inappropriate template format, so would benefit from this table.----Pontificalibus 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Separate article is not needed. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhibited[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. WP:PROMO applies. Not enough details for a standalone article. Being endorsed by Cher, a notable singer, does not make this subject notable. Information listed is also WP:PROMO and WP:CATALOG. While this could have been redirected to Cher, "uninhibited" can be a general term, so I don't think a redirect could be appropriate. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being endorsed by Cher, a notable singer, does not make this subject notable. Subject disappeared after two years in varia mergers, No longer exists. All references are about Cher's endorsement. Well, If I Could Turn Back Time, maybe. Today, no meet GNG. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (May Jailer album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. An unreleased album not for commercial purpose. Derived from unreliable sources ("Pop Crush", "So So Gay" / Digital Spy is not a reliable source for music articles). Did not chart on any albums chart. No further information than the leak date in 2012. While I could have assumed WP:BOLD and redirected this to Lana Del Rey, no information beyond a single sentence is discussed at the supposed target article. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has received quite a bit of coverage, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Michig above. All those references are reliable. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good to pass WP:NALBUM with reliable sources indicated by Michig. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:59, 12 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 Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. Daniel (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 Jaar Na Daddy Cool[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boney_M._discography#Non-international_compilation_albums. It's possible there's something in non-English languages, but if there is, I'm not finding. This appears to be the garden-variety non-notable one-off compilation album, which are usually safe to just redirect if there's no coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney M. discography. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, no chartings, certifications or accolades. Ashley yoursmile! 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JalenFolf, Ashleyyoursmile – actually, this album did chart in two countries, in the Netherlands [28] and in Belgium under a different name [29], so it has a better claim to notability than the other Boney M. albums that have been nominated for deletion recently. It was also released specifically to tie in with the group's 25th anniversary and was promoted by the record company, including TV adverts, I think. So unlike the other non-notable compilations, there's a better chance that coverage of this album exists in print media in Europe at the time. That said, at the moment we have no prose and only two chart positions, so I would not be against redirecting this album for now. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney_M._discography#Non-international_compilation_albums. This one is not as villainous as the other Boney M compilations recently discussed by the AfD community. As stated by the folks above, it hit the charts but there is still very little significant and reliable media coverage or pro reviews to qualify for WP:NALBUM. The fact that it reached the charts as part of the band's 25th anniversary can be mentioned at their Discog article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but... the compilation album was „released by BMG in the Netherlands in 2000“. Just sayin' --Dirge Jesse (talk) 20:53, 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 Boney M. discography#Compilation albums. If there is disruptive recreation feel free to come to my talk page to request protection. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Boney M.[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney M. discography and PROTECT against reversion. For the exact reasons as stated by everyone at the affiliated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Baker (album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there hasn't been an attempt to redirect this article before I started this AfD, I do not believe protection will be necessary. It will be useful to stop any IPs of WP:LTA/HANOI, including the current protection, but that's it. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I would not be surprised if the usual shenanigans with Boney M compilations start happening with this one after we redirect direct it for the first time. But I admit that my call for justice before the crime even happens doesn't constitute due process. We may see this album in the AfD list again... consider my premature accusation of a crime to be a prediction instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doomsdayer that the redirect will need to be given indefinite extended confirmed protection (ECP). JalenFolf, the Hanoi vandal has visited this article 15 times in the last two months. You yourself have reverted the vandal two of those times. The vandal will convert the redirect to an article as soon as is possible; you can see that Special:Contributions/27.72.131.220 performed that type of action on January 24 and again on January 25: edit warring to restore an article. It's what they do. Wikipedia commonly protects articles in expectation of vandalism, prior to the act. For instance, the Wikipedia:Today's featured article is always move protected by Special:Contributions/TFA Protector Bot prior to it appearing on the Main Page, and its images are likewise protected. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boney M. discography#Compilation albums, and a protect may be necessary, given past behaviour. Another unremarkable Boney M. compilation, which I think was originally released only in Germany, so even print coverage from 1984 is likely to be zero. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruletown, Kentucky[edit]

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

Yet another one where the GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, only for Rennick not to mention this location in his thorough Casey County directory or exhaustive index. The only newspapers.com reference is bizarrely a scanner error for the word rifle. Topos show a handful of buildings in a loose scatter around a rural road junction, but do not give a name for the site. The rest of my WP:BEFORE turned up two bare mentions to "Ruletown neighorhood" in exhaustive lists of places, with the rest of the hits being for a place in Texas or the words rule and town used consecutively. Even if there was a Ruletown neighborhood, WP:GEOLAND requires legally recognized populated places, and I'm seeing no indication that this place ever had legal recognition. Additionally, WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have looked in Internet Archive, Google Search, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, and GEOREF and cannot find any historical records that specifically mention a town by this name in Kentucky much less any hard, positive evidence or proof of this entity's notibility. Like Hog Farm, I have found only clickbait from its Wikipedia entry and texts where the words "rule" and "town" used consecutively along with "Kentucky." In agree completely with Hog Farm. Paul H. (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing on any topo, and the aerials show no sign of a settlement. I'm beginning to think we can start PRODding these "Rennick-only" GNIS entries given the track record. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Strong Delete No sources, the page is one sentence long, yet another useless town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has for far too long emphasized quantity over quality. It has lead to this articles that have no clear proof they are even reporting a name that was every actually used for any place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 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 merge to Spring Harvest#Media production and coverage. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faithworks[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Only found one source. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not sufficient coverage of sources. The only one source mention is not enough descriptive to make the magazine notable. Rondolinda (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This was a short-lived magazine published in 2007-2008. Presumably, it failed to sell well enough to continue publication. That suggests to me that it is (was) NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spring Harvest#Media production and coverage. It only takes 2 minutes to add it's single paragraph to the mag owner's article's relevant section. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican Planet[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable publication. Only found one or two throwaway mentions of it in independent sources. Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Magazine is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- What is is circulation? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we started deleting every article that is sourced only to the subject's own website. We need to stop allowing articles to come into being that do not have any independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, with a solid majority of participating editors preferring to keep it, and the next largest group supporting a redirect to one of two potential redirect targets. Participants advocating keeping the article have articulate a somewhat more substantial basis for doing so in this case than has been done for other articles nominated for deletion on the same basis. BD2412 T 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Keith[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A Captain (United States) posthumously awarded a Navy Cross is not notable. His role as namesake of the USS Willard Keith (DD-775) is set out on that page. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the navy cross alone is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a guideline and it doesn't mandate that one of those 8 criteria be satisfied, it says that "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they" have one of those 8. It is not a requirement. Having a U.S. Navy Destroyer named after the person is an honor that seems to indicate that the individual is significantly WP:NOTABLE alone. I think that satisfies WP:GNG on its own but his life is covered in depth in 4 paragraphs here. The LA Times ran an in-depth story on him on December 14, 1942, an image of which is here and previously on November 29, 1942 [30] Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS. The Navy history is simply about his role as namesake of the ship, everyone who has a ship named after them gets a writeup like that. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And only notable people have US Navy ships named after them. You have the USN history site, LA Times x2, that's plenty for GNG. Unfortunately most sources will be from 1942 and would not be online. Toddst1 (talk)

So many ships were made in WWII that they named them after non-notable medal recipients. There is not SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don’t know the reliability of article, according to United States ship naming conventions, the U.S. Navy names destroyers after "Navy and Marine Corps heroes". I have never heard that destroyers were "named after non-notable medal recipients". Can you please provide a reliable source for that? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the U.S. Navy names ships is not a determinant of notability on WP. Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be the determinant for notability, the fact that the Navy selected him as the namesake of a destroyer is a factor in establishing notability. My point is that destroyers are not "named after non-notable medal recipients", but rather someone the navy recognizes as a "hero". IMHO, that fact contributes to reaching the threshold of notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)

Delete or possibly redirect to the ship article noted above. Intothat darkness 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Combination of being a recipient of the Navy Cross and being the namesake of a ship. His Navy Cross citation is significant, as it reflects that he had a decisive role in a battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how his role in the months-long battle of Guadalcanal was "decisive". Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalcanal was a campaign, which is a series of battles. He led a company of Marines in the hotly contested area of the Matanikau River. He personally initiated and led successive hand grenade and bayonet charges in the face of tremendous fire, which resulted in annihilation of the enemy from the area. It is actions like these which are decisive in a battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, his role in one small skirmish was not in any way decisive in determining the outcome of the campaign. The action is entirely unreferenced, which is hardly a sign of a major battle, unlike the earlier Actions along the Matanikau, nor does this supposedly significant action even rate a mention on the Guadalcanal campaign, so he fails #4 of WP:SOLDIER as he did not "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In his award citation, the results of his leadership and actions were referred to as having "annihilated" the enemy force as part of an "offensive" by the Marines. It was not during "a small skirmish", but rather during the Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November, and not the one you are referring to above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The engagement is entirely unreferenced on his page and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, so clearly not a "significant military event". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November is covered by an article on the battle and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, and thus can be considered a "significant military event" and not a "small skirmish". The fact that he is not mentioned by name seems an oversight IMHO, but the actions he was involved with are reflected in the article on the battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "small skirmish" the entire "offensive" was 3 days long with moderate losses. Most of the Matanikau Offensive is background and he isn't even mentioned. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I would classify an offensive involving 5,000 personnel with 471 killed in action as a "significant military event" as compared to a "small skirmish". This offensive involved coordinated air, artillery and naval action. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played a significant role in a major battle in WW2 and the recipient of the Navy Cross and Purple Heart. It should be enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussion, did not play "an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." sufficient to satisfy #4 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did, and you're applying WP:SOLDIER way too strictly. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II or USS Willard Keith (DD-775). There are thousands of recipients of the Navy Cross and this does not give automatic notability. Without further significant coverage it is not established. Keith's actions in the battle warranted this award but it's not indicated how they were central to the battle among the at least 31 who received the Navy Cross for Guadalcanal and other participants who didn't. This does not pass WP:SOLDIER. Reywas92^Talk 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:FieldMarine User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played a significant role in a major battle in WW2 and the recipient of the Navy Cross and Purple Heart.Looper5920 (talk) 00:44, 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) 01:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Willard Keith (DD-775). It is well-established consensus that having a ship named after you does not satisfy notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin Walsh (closed just three days before). Walsh also had a ship with his name, was awarded a Navy Cross and was a captain. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entries in List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II have no article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Willard Keith (DD-775) as it seems to me that the consensus to do so is entirely reasonable. When everything significant that can be said about the subject is already going to be said in another article, there's no reason to have two articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the USS Willard Keith (DD-775) that was named after him. Google books search turns up a mention in a shipping journal to the ship commissioning , Google news/newspapers gives nothing. Of himself he doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Article is sourced and Soldier is just an essay. - wolf 01:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the USS Willard Keith (DD-775). The article is absolutely not well sourced as one reference is about the person who designed the Willard Memorial Terrace at Stanford (so clearly not about Willard) and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (so about the ship). All that is left is a findagrave.com page which is not reliable or notability establishing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirecting belittles the subject. Admittedly there are few sources on the subject, but I have found some additional sites that appear to have located old newspaper clippings about his death. I will work to improve the quality of this article. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (1) WP:SOLDIER guideline does not require all of the 8, rather any one of them; (2) Agree with previous comments that selection for the Navy Cross, selection for having a ship named in one's honor, etc. are sufficient to establish nobility; (3) the number of people receiving the Navy Cross in no way reduces one's notability - consider the % of military members who receive this honor; (4) deleting an article because a person is on a "List of XXX" is not a reason - consider "List of US Presidents". — ERcheck (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for #4 misinterprets what I said. The fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients on the list have no articles indicates the award does not establish notability. I in no way implied that it was a substitute for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.... However, the fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients have no articles does not mean that they are not notable. It means that there is not (yet) an article written on the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the ship article. Meets neither WP:NSOLDIER or WP:GNG. Contrary to many comments on recent AfD's, having a ship named after you has zero to do with notability. They are political decisions, given as favors to certain politician's as appeasement to their constituencies. The fact that some people who are notable have ships named after them is a different story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content is sourced, and there is enough information to justify a stand-alone article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not dealing with the actual disagreement here. We already have something of a standing consensus that neither the Navy Cross as a decoration nor having a ship named after them satisfies independent notability. Also, I have to say that across all these discussions there is something of a failure to deal with the issue of making two copies of the same text. Instead, I keep seeing having one's own article is a prize to be won in the Notability Stakes. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons for receiving the Navy Cross. In his case, he had a leadership role that had decisive impact on a battle that was a significant military event, in addition to it being heroic. This has been addressed in this discussion. On a different but related note, IMHO, the fact that the Navy Cross is specifically mentioned here has led to a bias against this award. The Navy Cross is the highest award for the U.S. naval services, which includes the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps as well as Coast Guard and Merchant Marines when federalized, currently about 750,000 personnel, far larger than the total size of military forces of most countries. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He played a role in a small skirmish in the Matanikau Offensive and isn't even mentioned on that page, so clearly it and his role were not that important. The highest award for any U.S. service member is the Medal of Honor. The size of U.S. naval forces is completely irrelevant to anything. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and he doesn't satisfy that, there's his DANFS bio and two other sources of dubious value. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the size of US forces plays against these nominations, as I've noted before. There were hundreds of US destroyers and destroyer escorts; for a lot of these guys the only thing we know about them is that they were KIA, presumably valiantly. And that's the presenting problem: we can't write much more than a stub based on the medal award, a stub which is going to be included in the ship's article anyway. I just don't understand why people are insisting that that we have to repeat this material in multiple places where one will do just fine. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the ship article, USS Willard Keith (DD-775). Does not meet WP:BIO and notability is not inherited from the ship. In re: arguments that the subject meets WP:SOLDIER: a. the subject does not meet it; and b. SOLDIER is an essay, not even a presumption of notability as an SNG would be. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the clear consensus at WT:MILHIST#having a military ship named after you proves notability that military personnel who have a ship named after them are not automatically notable. If sources aren't available to establish notability independently, the subject of this article should be covered in the article on the ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The guideline WP:ANYBIO indicates that we should keep the topic as the subject received multiple "well-known and significant award or honor". And the policy WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "well-known and significant award or honor"? Consensus is that having a ship named after him does not confer notability: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability. If you think the page can be improved by editing then do it, don't just talk about it, but the sources just aren't there and so he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, first the discussion you link to was only started on January 31st, so, 13 days after you started this AFD. You can hardly claim that a discussion that occurred 13 days after your nomination was a justification for your nomination.
Second, I think the question in the discussion you linked to was whether being the namesake of a vessel established notability -- ALL BY ITSELF. I think you know, full well, that absolutely no one has argued that, here, or anywhere else. It is a strawman argument.
Third, while wikipedia's definition of a consensus differs from the Parliamentary definition of a consensus I think almost everyone agrees that all genuine wikipedia consensuses (consensii?) are established through a civil and collegial discussion of all involved parties. At the time the discussion you linked to took place there were multiple AFD going on where multiple individuals had argued for considering being a namesake as a strong notability factor. No one placed a heads-up in those AFD that a related discussion was taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. So, please don't represent it as a bonafide consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says: " For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is being argued is that being argued is that having a large naval vessel named after you is a strong notability factor. As has been pointed out to you, in many AFD, is that hardly any of the BLP individuals we cover in standalone articles had their notability established by one single factor. WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC can establish notability with a single factor. But 99 of our BLP individuals have their notability establish by a cumulative assessment of all their notability factors. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Andrew Davidson did not clarify what "well-known and significant award or honor" was being referred to. Based on his argument on numerous similar AFD it was a fair assumption that he was referring to the ship being named for him. The fact that the ship discussion only began after I started this AFD is irrelevant, it arose from the Keep argument that Andrew added to most of the current AFDs. You seem to suggest that my deletion arguments must be frozen in time, without any account for new information, which isn't the case. It wasn't my responsibility to "place a heads-up", about the ship notability discussion, you can take that up with Dream Focus, but it is not an unreasonable assumption that people who participate in military deletion discussions also watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, anyway there is a clear consensus on the issue among the MilHist project, having a ship named after you does not establish notability. In relation to your BEFORE argument below, only one User has actually bothered adding any sources to the page since I AFDed it, but in my view those sources are largely about the battle he died in and still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS of him. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is proving to be somewhat contentious, I don't think there is a problem giving it a second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AINA PTT[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, a before search links to primary sources and sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems promotional article also there is not sufficient coverage sources that make the organization notable Rondolinda (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was thinking of nominating this myself due to WP:NCORP failure but you beat me to it; sources do not address the company in enough detail to meet requirements Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article that fails WP:CORP. Any independent RS coverage is routine in nature, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 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) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheitaan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The only reference in the article that speaks of the film in any detail, is boxofficecollection.in, however that is not a reliable source. Can't find anything of significance searching for "Faisal Saif" along with "Sheitaan". According to an unreliable source that I can't link to because it's on Wikipedia's blacklist, the film is a remake of another Saif film, Islamic Exorcist, which I have also nominated for deletion for the same reasons.

It is also worth noting that the chief article builders, RadheSlate and CursedSoulFromIndia were the same person operating two accounts, and have since been blocked for sockpuppetry. They have a very narrow focus of interest, and I think that this article was created to promote the films of Faisal Saif, which could suggest either UPE or COI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources so it does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Tessaracter (talk) 14:26, 13 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 their respective namesake ships.

Redirect Henry R. Kenyon Jr. to USS Henry R. Kenyon (DE-683)
Redirect John P. Gray to USS John P. Gray (APD-74)
Redirect Jeff Davis Woodson to USS Woodson
Redirect James C. Owens Jr. to USS James C. Owens
Redirect Ulvert M. Moore to USS Ulvert M. Moore (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry R. Kenyon Jr.[edit]

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

As with numerous other people currently up for deletion, a Navy Cross and a ship named after one is not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exactly same reasons (all members of the same ill-fated squadron, all awarded the Navy Cross and all with ships named after them):

A verdict for William W. Creamer was reached three days ago to merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. His namesake destroyer escort was launched, but not completed. George M. Campbell is in the same (uncompleted) boat as Creamer. His Afd is still open.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Henry R. Kenyon Jr. to USS Henry R. Kenyon (DE-683), John P. Gray to USS John P. Gray (APD-74), Jeff Davis Woodson to USS Woodson, James C. Owens Jr. to USS James C. Owens and Ulvert M. Moore to USS Ulvert M. Moore. All fail WP:SOLDIER (single award of Navy Cross, minor roles in Battle of Midway) and WP:GNG as they lack SIGCOV in multiple RS. MilHist consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability is that being a ship namesake does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to their respective namesake ships. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of them are even close to meeting our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Makes sense to have the namesake of the ship handled in the article about the ship if the namesake is not independently notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=Priceless%20Robin%20Banks

[2] ttps://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=Priceless%20Robin%20Banks&_gp_date=2020-08-18%2C2020-08-19

[3] Greep, Monica. "Edward Enninful thanks Vogue team behind Meghan Markle's 'Forces For Change' issue - but says 'moments of recognition' are 'bittersweet' after he became the first black person to be named Editor of The Year at PPAs". Daily Maill.

[4] McIlheney, Barry. "The PPA show must go on: magazine Oscars turn 40". Campaign (magazine).

[5] Donato, Al. "Meghan Markle's Vogue Issue Wins U.K. Press Diversity Award". Huffington Post.

[6] Royston, Jack. "Meghan Markle 'Honored' by Award for 'Vogue' Issue Featuring Greta Thunberg". Newsweek.

[7] Friel, Mikhalia. "Meghan Markle's British Vogue issue has won a diversity award a year after it was criticised for not including enough white people on the cover". Business Insider.

[8] Staff. "Spotify's Rakesh Patel to chair Campaign Publishing Awards". Campaign magazine.

[9] Staff. "Telegraph, FT and TTG top winners at 2020 Campaign Publishing Awards".

[10] Staff. "Mail and Guardian honoured as Campaign Publishing Awards kick off". Campaign magazine.

[11] Service, Tribune News. "No Rajya Sabha poll this time to spoil Adhir Ranjan's party". Tribuneindia News Service.

[12] DelhiFebruary 18, Kaushik Deka New. "Why the BJP's Rajya Sabha majority is safe till July 2022". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]