Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

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.  JGHowes  talk 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Beautiful Christmas Songs of the World[edit]

The Most Beautiful Christmas Songs of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the vandal investigation mentioned by the nominator. That person may not have created this article but has repeatedly recreated articles involving Boney M. albums after they were deleted or redirected. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed you mean 117.1.244.233 then. No a lot we can do about that. I was concered re Dreamer.se's uploads, but they're long gone. 17:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NALBUM. I do not recommend redirect as not much information can be incorporated. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Boney M. discography#Christmas studio/compilation albums and protect because a simple redirect will not suffice with this editor. Fails WP:NALBUM with absolutely no sources available, reliable or unreliable. There are still more of these to come, unfortunately. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Especially because this was created by an alleged vandal (who is at least inactive now), but still being vandalized by this Hanoi Vandal (who, in my opinion, should be sacked as quickly as possible - the fact that he has been active here since 2007 is really concerning). But also because of the total lack of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boney M. discography#Christmas studio/compilation albums. Fails WP:NALBUM, shouldn't be deleted but should be redirected.

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

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxes![edit]

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

Do not appear to meet WP:NBAND. Released one studio album with a non-major record label that failed to chart, and not many WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Elefant Records seems like a notable label to me (although I have never heard about it before). The notability is not clear for me though. Also, the article was created by a SPA/COI user. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Not a lot in the article to show them being notable. Not cklear if their 2012 record was actually released and they appear to have dissappeared after that mention.Spinney Hill (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Not notable so far as I can see. Should be deletedSpinney Hill (talk) 00:33, 13 January 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.  JGHowes  talk 02:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hyam[edit]

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

Possible non-notable actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: As Wikipedians always bring it up during discussions, "the question is not whether or not the article is in good status, right now, but if it can be in good status, later on". Not in those exact words, but still, coverage exists, making her notable as an actress. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a prominent enough actress for an article with significant roles in a couple of major series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NACTOR says that an actor is notable if they've had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If you agree that Hyam had significant roles in multiple productions, then the article should be kept. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - main cast in Jekyll and Hyde and Bodyguard Spiderone 00:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Children of a Dead Earth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Current sourcing is unreliable blogs or primary sources. Zero relevant hits in WP:VG/RS's custom searches. MetaCritic has 0 registered critic reviews. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stovall, Kentucky[edit]

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

Also don't think this is a "legally recognized populated place" that would meet WP:GEOLAND. Rennick's Barren County directory mentions a Stovall's Crossing which is a generic point where a road crosses the railroad, and his index says that Stovall was a locale (geography), a type of place that lacks legal recognition as a community. No results for Stovall in Barren County, Kentucky newspapers.com. Topos show a small group of houses where a road crosses the railroad. 1922 source states that Stovall was a place on the railroad with no post office, but nothing more. Passing mention in a soil survey, place not described. Reference to a Stovall Station, I've also found a lot of people from the area with the last name and a few references to Stovall Road. It's a place on a map, but I don't think it's one that meets WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm Bacon 03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage about the place as a community. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Reywas92, and my standards. A search of Google news, newspapers, and books yields zero hits. Remaining hits are directory-type lists. Thelma Stovall was a prominent Kentucky politician, and this is impeding research. Perhaps its name is an artifact of Internet coding. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross, Kentucky[edit]

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

Does not seem to have been a legally recognized populated place. Rennick says there was a post office here from 1903 to 1905, which given that that time frame was pre-rural free delivery, it was probably one of many short-lived 4th class post offices. He also states that it was where there was a crossroads store and a school in addition to the post office. Supposedly, the school is now the site of Hinks, Kentucky, but neither the topos nor GNIS seem to know of the existence of a Hinks, Kentucky. His index calls it a locale (geography), which by definition is not a legally recognized populated place. Topos show a very small collection of buildings at the crossroads, including a school. There are only two newspapers.com hits for "Red Cross" in Barren County, Kentucky papers, both from the 1940s - one reference to the school being part of a wartime scrap metal drive, and another for the major Red Cross organization. Gbooks hits are brief mentions of the school, a couple for a "Beckton-Red Cross Road", and one mention in a 1905 directory that just stated it had a post office and was near Rocky Hill, Barren County, Kentucky. I'm not convinced that having a post office for 3 years before RFD indicates a GEOLAND pass, and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm Bacon 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Again, this might be an artifact, or at best, it was a very small hamlet that is now ghost town. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 15 January 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) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Ready for Christmas[edit]

I'm Not Ready for Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable direct-to-TV film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Added a few new sources. There is 9 pages of results in Google News about this movie. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the new sources added on December 29. Mottezen (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added Donaldd23 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the coverage is very brief but due to the number of RS covering this, I'm leaning keep Spiderone 18:45, 18 January 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. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

England national under-20 rugby union squads[edit]

England national under-20 rugby union squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of squads from the England youth national team. Historic squads aren't normally kept even for national sides in this format. Could possibly be merged into a template but not sure how important this information is as appearances for England U20 aren't notable under WP:NRU. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if such appearances do not qualify them for notability under NRU then I see no reason to keep an exhaustive list of the squads here, I can't see a template being worthwhile either. Definitely do that for the senior squads but not for youth Spiderone 11:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would agree to this for senior squads in a template format similar to the one used for historic Barbarians squad as listed here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't see how this fits WP:NRU and agree with User:Spiderone about exhaustive lists of squads. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Gorbacheva[edit]

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

U19 caps and being her team's top scorer in the UEFA Cup are accolades that do not confer notability, unfortunately. She does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and does not appear to meet WP:GNG, which are the only two guidelines for footballers; a Russian search yielded zero significant coverage. Spiderone 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not receive SIGCOV in independent reliable sources so fails the basic notability requirement of Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being Footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per niom, GNG & NFOOTY JW 1961 Talk 14:43, 16 January 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 Annin & Co.. Content may be merged from the history as necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dettra Flag Company[edit]

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

Two or more reliable and independent sources are required per WP:COMPANY/WP:GNG. Only one of the sources in the article comes close to being useful: this story from the Historical Society of Montgomery County, PA. I'm not sure if the website is reliable and I have not found any substantial coverage in solid sources myself. I believe WP:GNG/WP:COMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the basic Notability requirement of Wikipedia as prescribed in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Annin & Co., both the target article and the content will benefit from the merge. Definitely, this is the better outcome. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:23, 19 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Scott Oswald[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This has been flagged for about four years now as advertorialized and likely paid editing, but has not been dealt with to any significant degree until just a couple of weeks ago, when somebody basically blanked almost the entire article so that it literally just said he exists, the end. I've reverted it accordingly, because that's not an appropriate response to problems with a Wikipedia article -- but if responding to content problems in a Wikipedia article requires you to strip it so bare that it isn't even making a basic notability claim anymore, then the real question is whether the page should actually be here at all. That said, I'm not an expert in assessing the notability of American lawyers: it may be that the article's actually fine and the content tags should just be removed, or it may be that there are content problems here and they're repairable, or it may be that the page should actually be deleted -- but no matter what, if it's been tagged for four full years without resolution, then it needs AFD to weigh in. (Also note that an earlier AFD discussion was closed "no consensus".) Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from being promotional, the creator was blocked as one of many socks of a UPE [1] - the lawyer may well be notable but this article needs TNT JW 1961 Talk 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:53, 11 January 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 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Cheung[edit]

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

Possible nonnotable actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that any of her roles have risen to the level of being significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All minor roles, reads like an IMDB page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not show significance as per WP:NACTOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:27, 19 January 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 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Ellis[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. The only sources I can find are a mention by DigialSpy [2], a few movie production sites, and a resume. DarthFlappy 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Please note recent COI edit request. DarthFlappy 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems promotional. The level of detail unsupported by references is strongly suggestive of inside information and conflict of interests. For all the detail, it is very thin stuff. Bit parts. Adverts. Straight to YouTube movies. You don't get to claim a "discography" for appearing in other people's pop videos for heavens sake. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is going to be hard to find information about her due to her similar name to Sophie Ellis-Bextor. Based on what we have now, I'm going to say Weak Delete - she has starred in some somewhat notable films and has been a model for This Morning, but it's not quite enough to warrant an article in my eyes. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention that my involvment with the article was prompted by a COI edit request. The edit request, among other things, requested that the article be changed to her new stage name Sophia Mackie Ellis. pinging @DanielRigal, Spiderone, and Foxnpichu: in case that effects your opinion. DarthFlappy 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for notifying me, but I don't think it is going to make much a difference. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:44, 12 January 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 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian political parties by time in office[edit]

List of Canadian political parties by time in office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How many years a given political party formed the government is not noteworthy or encyclopedic topic. While there are some instances where people (and sources) will talk about a party's time in office, that tends to be in rare and specific circumstances: pointing out that Party A has held office for X years in Y timeframe to underscore their dominance. But a thorough breakdown that tracks every party— no matter how small or of lasting relevance— and their time in office across all of history— with no specific timeframe— is far beyond that, and it becomes mere trivia.

In short, this page fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This content is covered in List of political parties in Canada and List of federal political parties in Canada. If there is need for a table clearly showing time in government, it could be added there or incorporated into a table that already exists there. That said, I am not sure that is even helpful, as it gets confusing with parties that dissolve, merge, split etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:OR. Who adds up time in office (other than the creator of this list)? Nobody apparently, as there are no sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unsourced and of dubious value, and as Darryl Kerrigan noted it gets messy when you consider the multiple different iterations of the Conservative Party. Also recall that a properly researched and properly referenced list should also stretch back well before 1867, and start showing parties like the Clear Grits, the Family Compact, the Château Clique and the Patriotes. And for added bonus, I'm hard pressed to come up with a good reason why we would care as well about Ontario, but not about any other Canadian province. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Self-created lists are generally not notable. Mukt (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista, Madera County, California[edit]

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

In the first place, this place doesn't exist anymore: the spot is now in a farm field. But going back through the topos reveals a row of buildings including a few substantial structures; but more importantly, one shows a siding peeling off the railroad and crossing the road to enter the middle of this "settlement", suggesting a commercial or industrial complex rather than a town. And after some other searching, I found that this was once the Sierra Vista Vineyard Co., an early winery operation put out of business, if I understand properly, by prohibition. This 1968 article from the Madera Tribune explains the history of the place. Considering the work I had to go through to dig this up, I don't think the winery was notable, but in any case it certainly wasn't an "unincorporated community" or any kind of settlement at all. Mangoe (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP. From this source it appears to be a winery business, not an actual hamlet. It is incidental that grape pickers might have lived there seasonally. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No post office. Newspapers.com was not very helpful, though searching for "Sierra Vista Vineyards" found a few articles. [3] is a bit confusing. It describes an accident at Sierra Vista Vineyards has happening in front of the foreman's home, though it states that the foreman lived in Minturn, California, which is south of Sierra Vista. Other than that I found no coverage of anyone living at Sierra Vista. As Sierra Vista is not legally recognized and as it has at best minor trivial coverage, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. This locale is non-notable and the article should be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 17:31, 18 January 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) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Naharlagun[edit]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Naharlagun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:MILL, and WP:TNT. I agree with the nomination. In addition, this appears to be a very run of the mill school, one of perhaps a million in India. The formatting is such a mess that it needs to be started from scratch in any case, even if it were notable. I note that even under my rather lax standards, it only has 6/10 factors, thus getting a failing grade from me. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which says (like Bearian above), inter-alia: At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . --Whiteguru (talk) 06:45, 19 January 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 Cooperative Research Centre. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRC for Spatial Information[edit]

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

Promotion of defunct non-notable organization; at minimum, upmerge with Cooperative Research Centre. fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion about why this should not be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 14 January 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) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Huggers[edit]

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

WP:RESUME on Wikipedia. Coverage is routine business announcements about companies he's managed and the usual announcements of managerial comings and goings. His impact on the BBC would be better covered at BBC, though the material currently present in the article is not neutral. Biography notability cleanup tag present for nearly 3 years. FalconK (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the Guardian: "Erik Huggers has overseen nothing short of a revolution in the way we watch television." Piecesofuk (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one source comes close to meeting the significant, independent, and reliable bar, even though it is a profile, but a single instance of reliable coverage rarely suffices. Also, it's about his work with the BBC, and if that's the only thing we will remember him for, any actual information about what he did would be better merged over there. The sentence you quote is a statement of opinion, not of fact. FalconK (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has significant coverage, BBC, Forbes, Billboard, Variety, The Guardian, most of these are in depth too. This meets WP:GNG. I think if anyone thinks this doesn't qualify then they should not be voting here or editing Wikipedia. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former CEO of Vevo, and has has plenty of coverage. It's not so bad as to require an entire re-write. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; He has significant coverage. Article is a bit like machine-gun coverage, he did this, he did that, he spent £639 on taxi fares in one day, blah, blah. Coverage is sufficiently significant. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:16, 19 January 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. I don't see a consensus to delete here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will You Visit Me on Sunday[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Not sure an Allmusic review in and of itself guarantees notability - the album didn't chart and hasn't had significant cultural impact. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Jones albums discography. I tried to find articles covering this album, but Allmusic was the only source that showed up, which does not warrant a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It made the Billboard country albums chart, not sure about whatever the equivalent of the 200 was back then. Reviewed in Billboard, rated by The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Finding other coverage would probably involve going through periodical databases and Jones biographies. Caro7200 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide the entry in the Encyclopedia? HĐ (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, not at work, so can't give the page number or say if it's anything beyond a rating, but I think it's the 4th volume of Larkin. Caro7200 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For an entry in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music this album is surprisingly obscure as no search results on Google Scholar are found. HĐ (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, GS is not the best place to look for information on a 1970 album, especially if you're using only the title. My argument is this: Major artist, significant label distributed by larger company, made at least the Billboard country charts, reviewed in AllMusic, reviewed in Billboard, rated by Larkin, the presumption of 1970s coverage (which would have to be found using periodical databases), the presumption of coverage in Jones biographies. Caro7200 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An album by a major artist is not necessarily notable unless it receives some sort of independent recognition (such as detailed reviews, instead of coverage within biographies). I don't think chart positions automatically warrant notability as mentioned at WP:NMUSIC. HĐ (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what other editors think. Frankly, biographies and music histories--books--should be used much more often in album stubs and short articles. Caro7200 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable album that received coverage at time of release, but sources cannot be found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see those having access to potential sources expand this article. HĐ (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album charted and was reviewed by Allmusic. Notable but not by too much.Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:04, 19 January 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.  JGHowes  talk 02:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Of the two sources in the lead, the DnD magazine is a primary source and the Forbes article is just a fluff sentence that fails to provide significant coverage. Outside of that, coverage seems primary and trivial. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cupper52: The character Tiamat is what is being proposed for deletion, not the game Dungeons & Dragons. The status of the game's notability is irrelevant to the character. TTN (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The coverage in Dragons: The Myths, Legends, and Lore is non-trivial (I can only see the first page, but even that little is quite good). There are plenty of reliable reviews of a book about Tiamat [4], [5], [6]. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a description with no particular commentary. On Google Books, you can see the entirety of the context. There is absolutely nothing there that can be described as original commentary aside from the obvious reference to having a mythological origin. The rest is just a literal plot description, which is why it is not used for anything in the article. It's literally just used to cite primary information. If it can be replaced with a primary source and have no context lost, it's not significant coverage. The Rise of Tiamat has its own article, so it's not relevant. If you want to merge the character there, then I'll gladly withdraw this so a discussion can be opened on how to best incorporate the material. TTN (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the whole thing on Google books for whatever reason. But yes, it's a summary of the character in a third-party source. That's exactly what we should be looking for. There are clearly tons and tons and tons of primary source material (certainly dozens of books and articles). But we are looking to establish notability. And yeah, if a book about person (or fictional character) X gets reviews that certainly counts toward the notability of the book, but also of its subject. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources need to provide original commentary which can then be used as material in the article. The simple existence of a description itself is not useful, else the dozens and dozens of cashgrab comic book character encyclopedias would be sufficient to prove notability for all but the most trivial of characters. If all you can do attach the reference to primary material, you've failed WP:NOTPLOT. The book sources mention nothing pertinent about the character, so they have no place in the article on the character. TTN (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you call them "cash grab" doesn't make them less of an encyclopedia. Summary of a fictional life still counts toward notability. NOTPLOT has nothing to do with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source fails to provide a single original thought. It is just a summarization of existing character traits. It is indistinguishable from a primary source in that regard. We judge the inclusion of sources on their relevance to the article. If the source provides nothing useful and can be replaced by a primary source without losing contect, that means it adds nothing of relevance to the article and that the article fails NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above and below showing it meets the WP:GNG, or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above remarks. Notable. Timmccloud (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is a little over-larded with in-universe refs which makes it hard to see at a glance, but there are indeed sufficient non-universe refs here to demonstrate notability. Ford MF (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior remarks, and, as I've said in many prior AfDs, be very cautious about the notability of subcultural topics for subcultures you are not in. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a specific reception section (which includes the books Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy & The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, a few list articles, and specifics on her portrayal in Rise of Tiamat) & reorganized some sections. The fictional description section is in need of a trim (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). There are 2 additional books I think might be useful based on their Google book snips but without a larger preview, I'm not 100%: Mythical and Fabulous Creatures: A Source Book and Research Guide (Malcolm South, Greenwood Press, 1987) & Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (Crawford Kilian, Self-Counsel Press, 1998). If you have access to these books (or access to a particularly speedy interlibrary loan system), please let me know if they're useful sources. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. While there are some really bad votes here (WP:NOTAVOTE, also WP:KEEPPER and WP:ITSNOTABLE) I wan to commend User:Sariel Xilo for adding a large reception section. "Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy" is a reliable source, although Tiamat only gets a two-sentence long treatment (but it's a serious analysis, as much as two sentences can provide one).The treatment in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters is similar (three sentences if we want to be gracious, but it is mostly descriptive, just saying she appears in Dnd). The other sources are low quality plot summaries / gaming lists / mentions in passing, generally considered either unreliable or insufficient for establishing notability. As such, I concur with TTN that tnis page is 99% fancruft of little encyclopedic value, but I'd support merging parts of the reception into some relevant page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the existing secondary sources. With the addition of a non-plot reception section that tells us how and why Tiamat holds a special place within D&D, Sariel Xilo has demonstrated that the topic can fulfill both WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT (even though currently there is still an imbalance towards plot summary information). Daranios (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy and the Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. There's more work to do but I think it passes bare notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strong depth of independent, reliable coverage, in particular, in the reception section of the article Spiderone 18:47, 18 January 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 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The sources are all junk. A contributor to the previous AfD suggested an article in the Gay and Lesbian Times, a legitimate publication, now defunct, whose website has been usurped by spammers and blacklisted, https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173424/https://gay(REMOVETHIS)lesbiantimes.com/?id=14754 ; anyway, it's trivial coverage in a society column. I looked for additional references and found only namedrops and trivial coverage (example). Cheers, gnu57 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 11 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Garmendia[edit]

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

Non-notable handball player. –Cupper52Discuss! 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played in the European Championship and has over 100 appearances for Spain. Article needs expanding not deleting. The Spanish language Wikipedia article has more than 3 sources showing in-depth coverage Spiderone 20:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - She played at the 2008 European Women's Handball Championship and scored eight goals in the semifinals. Article should be expanded, but not deleted. --Malo95 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: medalist at European Championship and per above. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:54, 13 January 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. Right now I'll admit the article doesn't sell itself terribly well for establishing notability, however there is no consensus below as to whether it should be deleted or expanded. Would suggest that if it isn't fleshed out in another couple of months, it may end up back here (and this close should not prejudice that occurring). Daniel (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan National Natural History Museum[edit]

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

Article about a museum in Guatemala that cites no sources and fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG. A very short stub. Cupper52 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deemed not notable, this could be redirected to List of museums in Guatemala Spiderone 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National natural history museums like this one are clearly notable. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate Comment exploring Spanish sources as I tend to agree with Dmitri that this is likely notable, but just flagging that Guatemalan National History Museum also exists. StarM 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be blatantly obvious that national museums are notable. @StarM: Note that it is not a duplicate: two different museums.[7][8] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I clearly need to have more coffee before editing or reading. Striking my erroneous comment. Still looking for Spanish-language sources StarM 14:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment' are we quite sure this is a separate entity from the Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala? They would be in the same city and that is what all my searches for Museo de Historia Natural are throwing up.©Geni (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above discussion. I note that in my world travels, there will be many similarly named museums. The Philippines has many museums and churches in Manila that seem to use similar names on purpose, just to confuse the moron in a hurry. New York City has at least three Photography museums and two St. Patrick's Cathedrals. Even Schenectady, New York had competing St. John's Churches. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftity: Participants are unsure of exactly what the subject of the article is and if it is a duplicate. If the article does not clearly identify the subject it is not ready for mainspace.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   14:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not unsure. Added refs, coordinates, other to article. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reungyos Janchaichit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL according to Soccerway, Footystats and Soccerpunter; the article itself makes no claim of passing NFOOTBALL either. Coverage from a WP:BEFORE search did not show WP:GNG being met either. Best sources were [10] [11] [12] Spiderone 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wongpakorn Jareontaveesuk[edit]

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

Does not meet the very low bar of WP:NFOOTBALL according to Soccerway, Tribuna and Besoccer. Coverage in Thai, such as this and this, is not focused enough on him to meet WP:GNG. Spiderone 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:26, 11 January 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) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procxin[edit]

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

Person fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Kim Se-young, also known by his in-game name Procxin, is a retired professional League of Legends player. When the article was created, he was a rookie on a bottom-tier LCS team, Team Envy (The LCS is the top-level league for professional League of Legends in the United States and Canada). He did not have any notable achievements during his career; his highest achievement was a third-place finish in Korea's second tier league. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playing in the top North American League is enough of an accomplishment for Wikipedia notability, not to mention the subject has been covered in reliable sources like ESPN and The Daily Dot/Dotesports.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not think every person who has ever played in a Tier 1 esports league is deserving of an article. Finding mentions and descriptions in multiple reliable sources is one part of establishing notability, but what is Procxin's "claim to fame"? If you are an esports-focused writer for a major publication, of course you will write about as many people as you can since it is your job. Procxin was a promising rookie from Korea during his early days in the NA LCS, but that is all his career amounts to. He did not win any rookie awards during his time in the United States, never placed higher than 5th/6th in a Tier 1 league's playoffs run, and is generally unknown amongst contemporary fans. Of course, establishing his notability is not limited to achievements alone, but there is nothing unique about his career either. He was not the first Korean player/promising rookie in the United States, nor the only (at the time), nor best, etc.
TL;DR: The question I asked myself before the nomination was, if I asked a dedicated fan of the LCS who Procxin was, would they remember? In my opinion, the answer is no—he did not have any notable achievements during his career, he's been out of the professional scene for over four years, hasn't streamed or done anything League of Legends/esports-related since, and is currently serving out his mandatory military service in the ROK Army. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Players in massively multiplayer online role-playing games are not notable. Article fails WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just clarifying again that I am proposing this deletion because Procxin is no longer involved in the esports scene (i.e. not a professional player in any top-tier leagues or a notable content creator), did not achieve any notable success during his former career as a professional player, and is unlikely to gain any notability in the future (is currently a regular soldier in the ROK Army). The content in the sources given do not establish any notability for, nor focus on, Procxin, and mention him in passing. I am not proposing this deletion because League of Legends players are inherently insignificant or difficult to establish notability for. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:06, 19 January 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 all. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm Papi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mmm Papi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Out from Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unusual You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Inside Out (Britney Spears song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Drop Dead) Beautiful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:NSONGS. Most content of these articles is derived from album reviews, and per notability guideline, a song should not have an article if most of its coverage occurs in the context of album reviews/discussions. For those citing chart positions as a reason to keep: NSONGS does not say that chart positions automatically warrant notability. What is essential of songs articles is third-party coverage, which these articles all lack.

The only third-party coverage I see is an Idolator source for "Unusual You", which alone could not construct a detailed article. For "Inside Out" and "Drop Dead", the only coverage is from MTV (including the gossip blog MTV Buzzworthy) on the leak/snippet release of the songs, which does not offer in-depth analysis on the song's significance (in terms of music/lyrics) on its own. HĐ (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 02:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC) HĐ (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mmm Papi" does have some coverage outside album reviews; the article currently has citations to interviews with the songwriters, but I am uncertain if those citations alone are enough to qualify for significant coverage or if they count as third-party since they are interviews. I would redirect all to their parent articles (i.e. Circus and Femme Fatale) as I agree that the coverage just does not appear to be there. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that covers Mmm Papi [13] does not mention the song's particular musical production i.e. arrangement/instruments, but rather just generic discussion on "vocals" and lyrics. That does not warrant notability to me, HĐ (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. Most of them barely charted or didn't chart at all. When they did, it was in the lower regions of these charts. None of the mentioned songs made an impact in the media, none were analyzed by major media brands. They all fail to meet the notability guidelines. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - part of this AfD is poorly formed. On the Songs AfD page "(Drop Dead) Beautiful)" and "Inside Out" link to a previous AfD (both of which had a consensus to keep), so that people who want to discuss deleting those songs are being directed to the wrong page, and those previous AfDs are not being linked here, so people can see that consensus and the reasons for it. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlendog: I am not seeing the archived AfDs in the articles' talk pages. I also searched for them but apparently the previous AfDs do not exist... Could you add the links if you happen to know where the links are? HĐ (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have been mistaken as to what the issue is. Actually, when you go to the AfD song page those have separate AfDs listed. But when you click on those links you are taken to the 1st "Mmm Papi" AfD, rather than to here. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to understand what you are trying to say... But if I am correct, AfD allows for multiple articles to be nominated at the same time. I think they are properly linked now... HĐ (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may have been a glitch in the system... I usually don't rely much on article alerts. But I can assure that the link to this AFD on the article's pages is correct. HĐ (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gobonobo + c 18:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gobonobo: May I ask why a discussion with three votes to redirect, which is hardly controversial for songs discussions, has been relisted? HĐ (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: As was previously noted, some of the initial AfD templates pointed to the wrong deletion discussions, so the primary reason for relisting is to provide additional time for those who may have been misled to believe that the result was already determined. Additionally, given this is a batch nomination of five good articles () whose rationale hangs on a narrow interpretation of an NSONG clause, I'm inclined to give the community more time for discussion. gobonobo + c 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I wrote before, all these songs fail to meet the notability guidelines, and there are no deeper analyzes of them. Charts are barely mentioned in the articles; two of these songs charted only on Billboard Pop 100, which is a defunct chart since 2009. All should be redirected. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - as mentioned by others, all these have going for them is some album reviews and low chart positions. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. No significant coverage/notability independent of the album. Heartfox (talk) 19:50, 18 January 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) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Byfield[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a journalist, with no particularly strong notability claim under our inclusion standards for journalists. The notability claim here is essentially that she and her work existed, but existence isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- to be notable for this, she would need to show some evidence of distinction, such as major awards or significant critical attention, to make her work significant. But two of the three sources here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence in online bookstores, which isn't how you make a writer notable -- and the only genuinely reliable source shown at all is a single obituary in a newspaper, which is obviously not nothing but isn't enough all by itself. Furthermore, this was created by a virtual SPA whose only other contributions to Wikipedia, in their entire edit history, have been to Ginger's husband and son, suggesting the distinct possibility of conflict of interest editing by a relative or family friend (especially since that edit history has included adding the names of all of Ted and Ginger's children, including the non-notable ones, to both of their articles without actually citing any sources for them, thus suggesting inside knowledge.) There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She just sounds like an average person, with no evidence of notability. Kittyclassified (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She founded an influential and notable right-wing Canadian magazine, so may well be notable. Please make sure to search for her legal name, Virginia Byfield, too. pburka (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not nearly what we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:SPA is obvious in page creation and topics. As per nom, no particularly strong notability claim. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:46, 19 January 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) Jack Frost (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anaerobutyricum hallii[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, recently created stub article that fails WP:GNG. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 11 January 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 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafel Toro[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. A simple private who received the Navy Cross once. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:12, 11 January 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. Arguments based on notability policies are the persuasive ones and have been weighted accordingly. Redirect can be established at editor discretion. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rivera Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being the first person of a given descent to die during a war does not grant notability. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE/Keep - Notable, seems like it meets the wiki General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNP), due to being covered in multiple independent sources, including the LA Times, NYTimes, NY Daily News, multiple military articles of tribute, and by the US Congress. If/when people have schools and public places named after them, it seems like being able to read the background for their notoriety is a great thing that wiki can offer to the people. Final point of interest, Operation Desert Storm was a very brief air-campaign, and for nearly a decade Captain Rivera was believed to have been the first US servicemember death, albeit non-hostile. If my understanding is correct that distinction was not revised for nearly 20 years, in August 2009, at which time Scott Speicher's death on Jan. 17, 1991 was determined as the first US casualty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher [FYI this comment has been edited multiple times by klgeels].
    • I have no clue what you're trying to say here, much less why IPs that have never made an edit before today can vote on AFDs. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • per Wikipedia standards, your reply can be construed as "personal attack". If you wish to understand, be specific in your request for clarification. If you do not wish to understand, an impersonal posture would be indicated by refraining from comment.
      • I agree with User:Lettler an IP that has never edited before comes to this page to make comments, this screams WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm also confused as to why a IP that has only made edits yesterday understands what WP:NPA is. I agree with Mztourist, probably some sort of sock here. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was a real hero. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. Keep.
    • Any actual Wikipedia guidelines to support this? Lettlerhello • contribs 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While true, that is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. Your !vote basically amounts to WP:ILIKEHIM; but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your objection remains unclear. If I look at the guidance for Notability, per Wikipedia per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people): EXCERPT: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.END OF EXCERPT List of Independent sources for Service and Sacrifice of Captain Manuel Rivera, Jr: "Style"; New York Times; by: Nadine Brozan; August 11, 1992; LA Times Staff Writers (December 17, 2002). "More Than A Few Good Men". Los Angeles Times; "Marine Has Landed At Aviation School"; New York Daily News; by: Sharline Chiang; March 22, 1995
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NOTMEMORIAL and SOLDIER. We'd have to include each first casualty from state X as well to be consistent. Also, he died during a training mission, not in combat. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable by rank, decoration or anything else I can think of. Doesn’t meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited for clarity: His exceptional contribution has been acknowledged by the US government and his community in NY. That seems like ample justification for all the people to whom wikipedia belongs. Klgeels (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8B0:7410:3876:2CA8:6771:A3A5 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't mean he passes WP:GNG. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • which limits the interpretation of "notable" to those standards conferred by the US Military The standards conferred by the US military are irrelevant. Wikipedia's standards are the relevant ones. And he, sadly but factually, does not meet those standards. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peacemaker67 and others. Intothatdarkness 20:07, 15 January 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. This seems to have been an attempted WP:BLPPROD? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Provenzano (Italian politician born, 1946)[edit]

Giuseppe Provenzano (Italian politician born, 1946) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no working references. Clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable and the it.wiki article has more sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources in the Italian and Sicilian articles could be used to show notability; I reckon there's enough there. Needs attention from an Italian speaker, ideally. I tried a search myself but I'm getting a lot of mafia stuff. Spiderone 19:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Rathfelder: - when you say "Clearly notable" - is that a typo? Should you have written "Clearly not-notable"? If they are notable, then there's no need for the AfD? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was president of Sicily he is notable. But the rule is that living people biographies must have at least one working reference. Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. President of Sicily is enough for WP:NPOL and from the Italian Wikipedia version I found the following source [16] which I think is enough to verify that claim and survive BLPPROD. I'll add it to the article. If kept, it should be moved to a title with a more-grammatical disambiguator. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as "clearly notable" per WP:NPOL, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. --151.74.231.184 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schreiber[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Received a relatively common award and only had a bunker named after him. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the Knights Cross arguably meets #1 of WP:SOLDIER, but I think notability comes from Bundeswehr naming a barracks after him. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lean delete: I am not sure over this nomination. The decision to name a barracks after someone must surely be indicative of notability but is not a consideration in WP:GNG and cannot be decisive. I do not speak German but do not see any basis for notability in the largely directory-style sources currently cited. Do we know how much discussion there is in Falsche Glorie: das Traditionsverständnis der Bundeswehr which is the only WP:RS? I think the best solution is probably for any relevant biographical details to be covered within a future article on the barracks concerned and/or a future article on the Bundeswehr and World War II. WP:SOLDIER is only an essay, in any case, and there is no way that every recipient of the Knight's Cross is de facto notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Barracks named for him. Matters not that it was small. Bundeswehr barracks were small because the army was small. Article should cover basics of his service and in particular elaborate on the activities that illuminate why he was considered a role model in post was Germany. It’s not like he was a traitor or anything, or an incompetent like Braxton Bragg. auntieruth (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep In general terms, KC w/OL recipients where the award has been for valour in combat (which this appears to be) have been found after examination to be around the threshold of presumed notability established by WP:SOLDIER, but having a Bundeswehr barracks named after him is a significant additional factor, as it signifies that he was seen (at the time at least) as someone from the Nazi era whose actions were laudatory enough to be a model for the post-war military. There will be sources that explain why his name was chosen for a barracks. There has also been some revision/criticism in recent German historiography of the Bundeswehr and its naming of barracks, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there has been discussion of the naming this barracks among the German academics who have written on such matters. Perhaps Assayer is aware of whether this is the case? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves clearly qualifies per WP:SOLDIER #1, even if the unadorned Knight's Cross does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lean delete: There is indeed some recent research on the policy of naming barracks by the Bundeswehr. Frank Hagemann commented on these in an essay on “Tradition und Neuausrichtung der Bundeswehr“, in: Tradition für die Bundeswehr, ed. by Birk/Heinemann/Lange, Berlin 2012 (it’s been published as BoD, but it’s a reliable source as it was written by scholars). According to Hagemann, during his tenure as secretary of defence Franz-Josef Strauß stubbornly resisted the naming of barracks after members of the Wehrmacht. Only when Kai-Uwe von Hassel succeeded him in office, a number of barracks were named after soldiers of the Wehrmacht during the mid- and late Sixties. Among them were the now infamous Dietl-barracks in Füssen (1965) and the Oberfeldwebel-Schreiber-Kaserne in 1967. There is nonetheless not much scholarly biographical research on Schreiber himself. Walter Nutz discusses a Landser-magazine dedicated to him in "Der Krieg als Abenteuer und Idylle. Landser-Hefte und triviale Kriegsromane," in: Norbert Honsza (ed.): Untersuchungen zur populären Literatur im 20. Jahrhundert (Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, Band 853 (Germanica Wratislaviensia, Band 62)), 1987, ISSN 0239-6661, pp. 99–115. Jakob Knab follows closely (including many quotes as a means to distance himself from the language) the Standortbroschüre Dreißig Jahre Garnison Immendingen. There is also a brief biographical sketch in the local history by Vögele/Dreyer, Immendingen. Geschichte einer Gemeinde an der Donauversinkung (1989). Their language is clearly biased, too („Josef Schreibers große Zeit begann mit dem Rußlandfeldzug.“ = Josef Schreiber’s great time began with the Russian campaign) Since the barracks have been disbanded anyway, there is not a great chance that there will be any detailed study of Schreiber’s biography in the near future.
To give you an idea of the current lines of discussion I may refer to an essay by Markus Renner, “Ist das noch Tradition – oder muss das weg?,” on the Marseille-barracks in Appen. (in: Die Luftwaffe und ihre Traditionen, ed. by Birk/Möllers, Berlin 2019) As Renner points out, even the Nazi propaganda had difficulties dealing with unreliable and tainted sources, and those unreliable sources remained a problem after the war. Most important was Fritz Dettmann’s “Mein Freund Marseille” of 1944. When the barracks were named after Marseille in 1975 that seemed to be a legitimate act. With the new guidelines, however, enacted by the Ministry of Defence in 1982, the Bundeswehr tradition had to honor the norms of the Grundgesetz, and the barracks should have been renamed already.
Thus, given the scarcity of reliable sources, I hardly see how a reliable bio of Schreiber could be written. Wikipedia is not to preserve traditions that the Bundeswehr has long since abandoned.----Assayer (talk) 16:15, 19 January 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.  JGHowes  talk 02:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nur University[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - just needs some attention for integration of sources… (adding to talk page) Smkolins (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Three of those links are Baha'i sources. The first link gives 404 error. Other links like "Michael Bopp; Judie Bopp (2001)" mentions it once, the "Brent Beane" article says that he worked in the "Nur University", the "James Nicholas, 2000" has a trivial mention, only once! The general notability guideline clearly states that sources that only contain a "trivial mention" of a topic are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Check WP:TRIVIALMENTIONServ181920 (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it looks like the nominator didn't even bother Googling the subject. First response shows it ranks 11th in Bolivia [17] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what is the last rank acceptable for a university to be notable? And what sources are acceptable for such ranks?Serv181920 (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:UNIN, colleges and universities are notable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:UNIN is an advice, it says "This notability advice is an application of the general notability guideline to the articles this project covers, not a replacement of said guideline. Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions. Although this advice may be referred to in these discussions, keep in mind that the document you are now reading is not a policy or guideline and should not be treated as such."Serv181920 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well-known high-ranking university in Bolivia, I don't understand why the nominator is so keen in deleting pages related to the Baha'i faith. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles should be there only if they are notable. Instead of claiming that "It is a well-known high-ranking university in Bolivia", update the article with reliable sources, that would be of more help.Serv181920 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than nominating pages like this for deletion you can do some research first and add a tag for improving references instead. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching but could not find anything of significance. I agree with Bearian.Serv181920 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BEFORE. Even with weeding out the internal Bahai sources, see this. It's not a one-click research due to other similarly-named universities, but please at least try. I'm not full-throated in my endorsement because there's many other sources I found that just note such and such person is an alumnus of the university, or on Google scholar that so and so professor published this paper, and the coverage arguably is not very significant. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign language sources - [18]: "João Veríssimo is Brazilian and professor of International Relations at Universidad Nur, one of the most respected in Bolivia." [19]: covers stories of how students across several universities are dealing with the pandemic. Three of the students are from Nur. [20]: covers how universities are dealing with the pandemic and dedicates the bottom third of the article to Nur's program. [21]: independent coverage on Nur University's program of prison rehabilitation, which was 18 years old in 2018. [22]: lists two campuses in La Paz and Santa Cruz de la Sierra. [23]: coverage of Nur's soccer (futbol) program. [24]: coverage of a seminar on GMOs held at Nur. [25]: coverage of six inmates graduating from Nur's distance learning program. [26]: interview with graduate from Nur. [27]: coverage of the university planting 5,000 saplings around Santa Cruz. These, along with 20+ articles mentioning individuals as graduates or faculty of the university should be plenty of notability for keep. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:13, 15 January 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 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Gregory[edit]

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

Borderline speedy-deletable; no depth of coverage from any third-party reliable sources; two-sentence blurb on Worldstarhiphop appears to be a user-submitted video. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:23, 11 January 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 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel J. Murray (soldier)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. An army officer who received a common award and had a non-notable post-military career. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No depth of coverage in third-party reliable sources (only mentioned in book; an alumni magazine profile doesn't meet criteria). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER (one award of the DSC doesn't satisfy #1) and WP:GNG. Page was created by an SPA who is presumably a relative. Mztourist (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not where you go to build a memorial site for your father, grandfather or other relative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 11 January 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) 04:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Covert[edit]

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

Non-notable diplomat. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Weak keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN Kittyclassified (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kittyclassified: Per Johnpacklambert, he is basically only an ambassador. –Cupper52Discuss! 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He does not pass politician notability. Diplomats are not all passing politician notability, the article does not suggest he was ever in a position that falls under the politician guidelines. Diplomats require significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm still new to Wikipedia as you can probably tell, thank you for your input. I understand that he does not pass wp:politician now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyclassified (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We used to have a consensus that all diplomats were extended an "inherent" notability freebie regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof — but that's since been deprecated, and diplomats now qualify for articles only if they can be properly sourced over WP:GNG. That means journalistic coverage about him and his work in real media, not just "staff profile" verification on the embassy's own self-published website about itself — but the sole source here is the latter, not the former. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the correct type and depth of sourcing to write much more than just that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one source so based on this doesn't meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:45, 19 January 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 per withdrawal by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. No prejudice towards redirecting this to List of Forgotten Realms characters (although it seems to have been in turn redirected to Forgotten Realms#Characters. The 2016 discussion ended as keep but it significantly rested on argument that the character was mentioned in a number of sources - sadly a review of those suggests that those are pure mentions in passing, like the fact that he appears in the D&D Drizzit's board game (which I incidentally own). None of the sources cited in the last AfD or added to article contain anything that approaches significant discussion of this character. Ps. On a side note, however, I want to point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms characters was closed as merge but no merge was performed - maybe User:BOZ would like to add this to their to-do list? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not yet looked into whether there are adequate sources out in the wild which demonstrates that the character meets GNG, so I have not formed a view to either vote Keep, Merge/Redirect or Delete. I see a few problematic issues with the rationale behind the nomination however. I should point out however that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not a requirement or guideline as represented by the nominator. In fact, the first paragraph of the essay opens with "There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements (such as characters and episodes) on Wikipedia", so the only consideration here is whether the subject topic meets GNG in order to determine if the presumption that it warrants a standalone article stands. Another issue I have with the nomination is that the nominator started a AfD without specifically making a case for the article to be deleted due to an alleged lack of notability, but to in fact canvass opinions on whether the outcome of the last AfD should be overturned based on his subjective opinion of the quality or availability of sourcing. The nominator mentioned in passing about the problematic state of current sourcing and concluded that it fails the GNG, but did not provide a detailed source by source analysis for other editors to provide a compelling reason that all alleged mentions are trivial and why the overall coverage fails GNG, particularly when the consensus of the last AfD voted otherwise. I note that recent comments by other experienced editors here and here made it clear that it is inappropriate to start a AfD if the nominator's position isn't to advocate for an outright deletion of the article. Is there a compelling reason, other then a potential WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as to why a merge proposal is not started on the relevant talk pages instead if the nominator blatantly conceded that it could be redirected to another appropriate merge target? PS: Also, why was BOZ publicly called out and asked to salvage material from the redirected page, as if it is their obligation to do so? Haleth (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ Haleth --> I haven't yet developed my own opinion, but a few crucial points of order. The nominator clearly mentions GNG first, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) second. Are you suggesting that the existence of the Notability (fiction) supplementary page should be ignored and not discussed at all? Also...you speak about the practices of experienced editors. Well, the nominator seems to me to be very experienced and skilled. It appears to be more experienced than you or either of the two other editors you mention, at least going by simple edit count. Why do you assume that his practices are not the "best practices"? I'm sorry, but it appears to me like there is some IDONTLIKEIT here.... - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is an essay which reflects the original author's subjective opinion or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at best, that does not reflect community consensus, and has as much weight as WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is also an essay. It's fine for editors to use them as shorthand to summarize their arguments or opinions, but definitely not a "requirement" as asserted by the nominator; again, the GNG threshold is the only consideration in an AfD discussion like this according to procedure, as there is no relevant SNG for fictional characters or works. One of the editors I highlighted is an administrator on Wikipedia who frequently comments on topics regarding fictional works, and I did not actually use the term "best practices". The fact remains that there was a clear majority consensus to keep the article, and the nominator has yet to provide a source by source analysis of both the sources available on the article as well as the sources which were brought up in the second AfD but for some reason were never added to the article, to refute the consensus. All he did was provide a brief subjective opinion of the status of the sourcing and availability of sources, and why he believes the previous consensus was reached. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - As with the other characters in this series, my first thought is that it should be obvious that they're notable, but nobody has ever produced sufficient sources for any character outside of Drizzt. Coverage is always limited to trivial mentions, and it seems they just have not obtained the necessary level of cultural impact necessary to sustain an article. What exists in the article is insufficient, and neither AfD has produced anything worthwhile at this point. TTN (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notes on sources from other editors, and comments below from nominator withdrawing the deletion, or failing that at worst merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. I recently added some commentary from this review from Io9 for the first book he appeared in, and I don't remember if they comment further on him but the same reviewer also looked at the next book in the trilogy: [28] BOZ (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because contrary to the nomination there is significant treatment in secondary sources: Looting the Dungeon talks about Wulfgar at length, giving some plot-summary, but mostly characterizing him, and examining the novel vs. the RPG character and comparing it to other novel and RPG characters; Fantasy-Rollenspiele als Medienverbundangebote talks about Wulfgar for a page, giving both plot-summary and analyzing his character arc; together these two fulfill the minimum requirement of WP:GNG. In addition, there are a number of shorter secondary sources that give us both plot-summary and some piece of analyis or real-world relation: The Io9 articles already mentioned by BOZ; "Book Review: Night of the Hunter" (character development), Naming Your Little Geek (name origin), The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games (short, but rates Wulfgar as one of Salvatore's two most famous characters); The Guide to Writing Fantasy and Science Fiction (short, but tells us that Wulfgar as a main character was overshadowed by (and recast for) a side character). Lastly, the character has appeared in other media as evidenced by secondary sources listed in the previous deletion discussion, as mentioned by Piotrus, which is another piece of real-world-related information. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the first two sources have any particular worth, as the rest are trivial mentions. In terms of the two sources worth looking at, they seem fine, but there's no way that they alone can be considered enough to establish notability. The number of sources required is obviously up to interpretation, but you need strong sources for two to be sufficient. They're more than a trivial mention, but they're not overly focused on the character either. You could easily summarize them on a character list or main series article. TTN (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unclear if the first two sources would be enough, let's look at the one thing WP:N does say about numbers: We need more than one. So two in general can fulfill that. To see if two are sufficient in this case, let's look what WP:N wants to achieve: "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and not "only a few sentences". Could we do this based on those two sources? Yes. Will the article be better off if we also include infomation from the other sources? Yes. So I don't think they are trivial with regard to WP:GNG or at all. That's why I still think WP:N is satisfied here. Daranios (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is less on the aspect of the individual source significant coverage being met but more on the "multiple sources" definition being met, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." While simply an essay linked to from GNG, Wikipedia:Multiple sources covers the quandary that it's intentionally vague. The issue is the depth of these two sources is not particularly deep. They're more than a trivial mention, but they're also not an in-depth focus on the character to the point where we can say these alone are enough to form the core of the article. You say we can write an article, but all I see in terms of potential improvement is 90% plot and a small analysis section being made. While we certainly have perma-stub articles with notability established, there is no particular reason to set aside quality issues when a parent topic exists in which this information can be housed in accordance with the weight the topic deserves. If these are the only two sources, then this should be at best on a character list or in the series article. TTN (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I go any deeper into that: Where would you put the information we both expect is in the secondary sources (though to quite different degrees), if it was not kept in a separate article? Daranios (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either a character list on an overarching Drizzt series article (surprised there isn't one) or a character list more focused on just the Drizzt characters. That could actually have some potential depending on how much content can be found for rest of the Companions and the temporary time-skip party. If it's possible to have a general development and reception section, I'd certainly have much more faith in that producing something worthwhile, unlike the complete Forgotten Realms list, which was way too bloated. TTN (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TTN: Allright, I have added some more from one of the secondary sources. So there is a reception section + a bit in the beginning of non-plot information. (BTW, I am having trouble finding concise phrasings in English. I am not doing that to artifically bloat content. If someone finds a more elegant phrasing without removing content, I will be happy about it.) We can expect to get at least a few more sentences from Looting the Dungeon and the other mentioned secondary sources. I still think that that is enough for the article to stand on its own. That said, I think such a list article as you suggest would be a good idea, especially given that there's quite a bit of information in the sources found here on Bruenor. That kind of information would not fit well into Forgotten Realms#Characters, where the redirect is pointing at the moment, but would fit well into such a list). I also would not feel strongly against including Wulfgar in such a list. I just think that if we take the non-plot information that exits on Wulfgar + an equal amount of plot summary, we would get a large section on him in such a list, and that would be a worse way of presentation. Alas, a list of Drizzt characters does not exist yet. And I would feel strongly against turning what we have here into a redirect in the hopes that someone will one day create such a list. (And, as Haleth has nicely pointed out, such a creation is not the responsibility of anyone specifically.) That would be a disservice to anyone who comes to Wikipedia looking for that kind of information. First requiring to create another article and then accepting a merge is not how an AfD works, I know, but I hope you can understand my stance on that. Daranios (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always happy to review good finds. This PhD thesis states "In a similar manner, Conan, Boromir, Caramon and Wulfgar can be used as text-specific examples of the RPG’s Warrior Class which is a..." .. then pages 181-182 have a bit more such as "Caramon and Wulfgar, on the other hand, exemplify the strong, honest, hot-headed young warrior hero type common to adventure stories and similar to Howard’s creation Conan". But basically, this boils down to 'Wulfgar has been compared to Conan'. The other source linked is German and Google Books does not provide a translation AFAIK so I can't comment on it. Despite what some may think, I am happy to rescue articles, but so far I see one borderline sources (the PhD thesis), one foreign language source that I can't analyze and nobody did so here, and a bunch of low-reliability mentions in passing (from the last AfD, none of the particularly useful). Please ping me if the analysis of the German source is presented, so I can think about this more, but so far we are at the 'good start, not changing my mind' point. On a side note, I think editors interested in this should try to expand the Forgotten Realms#Characters list (I tried but failed to find any source which lists notable/important FR characters, but if this can be done, then characters like Wlfgar can get a short paragraph each, with a 1-2 sentences plot summary - because, let's face it, anything more is undue fancruft - and a few more sentences summarizing reliable scholarly analysis or reception, like that Conan comparison cited here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 13 January 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) Jack Frost (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mizan Dam[edit]

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

Non-notable dam, recently created, fails GNG. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmojtabaa: As the article creator you are usually expected to vote keep. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY. World Heritage Sites are almost always notable, and this was built by Roman Soldiers and is still standing! Bearian (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's difficult to imagine an extant manmade structure built 1750 years ago which isn't notable. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Narky Blert above.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   13:09, 18 January 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 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coziem[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a non notable singer who doesn’t any criterion from WP:SINGER neither does he possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG either. A before search shows hits in predominantly user generated sources thus aren’t reliable or independent of the subject Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 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 deletion by Jimfbleak. 1987muratkayak, please note that listing this discussion at the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions by Thjarkur was not a all an act of disapproval with you or Turkey in general. Rather it was done to notify a project of Wikipedia editors that aims to improve Turkey-related content at this Wikipedia, so they might have stepped in to save the article. However, I agree with the deleting administrator Jimfbleak that the subject of the article does not meet our criteria of general notability. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Kayak[edit]

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

Subject has two small interviews in local papers where he discusses his business, but does not meet WP:GNG. Has not had impact as a scholar yet, has barely received any citations. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including the Turkey as well. This has been clear that you have a problem with Turkish people. But I do not care whether my article is deleted or not. It is clear that you should have a Global Mind Set.

I am asking a good editor who is reliable, delete this article. I am asking my self to delete this article. No problem.

Thank you.

1987muratkayak (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedied this if I'd seen it earlier, and in view of the request above, that's what Ill do now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:50, 11 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Green (Aircraft Design Engineer)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, I couldn't even reliably verify that he exists. Article was Prod'ded, but as it was removed by a brand-new, one-edit only editor, it was not allowed to be reinstated. Burocracy gone mad, but I guess an AfD will do as well. The short history of the article is filled with completely new editors, so it looks as if something fishy is going on here. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no RS, no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the article (which is more like a family history piece) that indicates anything of note for a mention in the encyclopedia never mind a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears a user saw this article and got a wild hair to write about a "hometown hero". While no doubt distinguished, Mr. Green is not notable, and the article is breathlessly overwraught trying to make him so. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And the lack of proper use of citation tags, inline citations or an infobox doesn't help the case. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm dubious about some content, it looks like it is/was sourced from the subject himself so the creator may be in a COI. Zawed (talk) 21:59, 11 January 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. Article has changed since nomination. Feel free to re-nominate if so desired based on current version. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marni von Wilpert[edit]

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

BLP about a member of the San Diego City Council. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council members are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a member of the city council of a regionally and nationally significant city. KidAd talk 00:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NPOL says “ City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London.” I don’t think San Diego is in that category. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego has a population of approximately 1,307,402 (as of 2010). Even if a city is not classified as a “mega-city,” this does not mean it isn’t regionally significant. KidAd talk 18:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The city has regional significance" is not the inclusion bar for city councillors. The bars are either "the city is externally classified as a global city by the organizations that are authorized to confer that status", or "the councillor has much more nationalized significance than most other city councillors do". Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has dozens of other news. I added a few more. Meets notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Bordallo (surname). Daniel (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Bordallo[edit]

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

Delete. This page is 99% a clone of Bordallo (surname), just with a job in the title. There is also absolutely no chance anyone would look for these two as Senator Bordallo, since Ricardo is notable as a Guam governor and Madeleine is his wife and a U.S house delegate. Consensus has usually leaned against Job+Surname pages in the past. --Quiz shows 07:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --Quiz shows 07:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither of these two people would be primarily looked at as senator. One would be governor, and the other most likely as delegate or whatever exact title you would give her, or maybe first lady since she was also the wife of the governor. Since they are married to eachother, even the surname page that serves just to list the two makes no sense. The articles are linked without creating other articles to link them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unneeded dab. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bordallo (surname). Since both of the entries were (local) senators at some point there is some merit to the search term. Going by the principle "redirects are cheap" is fine as long as the search term isn't misleading. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 19 January 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) 04:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kennedy (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Page fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The doctoral publications fail the GNG guidelines, the two books were not significant new concepts, theories, or techniques per NAUTHOR, and failed to have any substantial coverage outside that. ~RAM (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a writer or as a computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His claim to fame is having written two editions of a definitive guide to HTML. I'm not sure that's enough. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bearian, the guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR are pretty specific as to whether or not the author is notable - I do not believe that he meets the criteria for this. ~RAM (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an obviously promotional article about someone who has gotten a couple research grants and written a couple technical how-to books. Nothing notable here to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, or any other guideline I can think of. FalconK (talk) 05:47, 19 January 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) 04:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

California School[edit]

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

Only two entries come even remotely close to being called "California School" (the high school and the elementary school), but nobody refers to them that way either. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does seem like a bit of an overzealous WP:PTM issue. A Google Books search for the phrase comes up with mostly stuff like that on the first page, didn't bother checking further... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "California school" is a generic term, no more specific than "luxury car" or "vintage wine". Show us one counterexample. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the vagueness of the term/title. Orvilletalk 06:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dab pages are supposed to reduce confusion, not add to them. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 15 January 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 mayors of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Consensus that he is not notable, redirecting per AtD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Burgoyne[edit]

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

A biography with only a single source (which failed verification) since creation in 2010. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a census record (hxxps://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LRKP-DZ8/harris-burgoyne-1911-1994 - a WP:UGC site) and two WP scrapes (hxxps://peoplepill.com/people/harris-burgoyne/ and hxxps://amp.google-wiki.info/27807148/1/harris-burgoyne.html); but nothing WP:RS. The Silver Beaver Award is not enough to confer notability - it has been awarded more than 50,000 times. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG.

One or other of the above links triggered the spam filter, so I've changed https to hxxps. Narky Blert (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayors of polities this size are not default notable. Nor are winners of the Silver Beaver award. I had not idea it was handed out so often. The sourcing is no where near sufficient. Census records are primary sources, and should not be used at all to directly create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect >> List of mayors of Green Bay, Wisconsin as is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nom) Redirect per Djflem (and remove the link from the target). Narky Blert (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. At the time this was first created, we extended an automatic "inherent" notability freebie to all mayors of any city with a population that exceeded 50,000 — which Green Bay obviously does — but that's since been deprecated, and making a mayor notable enough for inclusion now requires getting him over WP:GNG on the sourcing. Additionally, what's required is substantive content about his mayoralty — specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, etc. — and the ability to verify biographical trivia like where he went to high school and the names of his family members is not how you do it. But this is the latter, not the former, and its sole footnote is a directory that is not a notability-making source. To be fair, a person who served as mayor in the 1970s is not going to have sources that Google well — they'll mainly have to be retrieved from newspaper archives, microfilms and/or books, rather than sitting out in the open on the web — but to get a mayor kept in 2021 the necessary sources have to be shown to exist, not just presumed to probably exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. I can verify the he was a mayor 47 years ago, but that's it. No WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 15 January 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) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV Alabama tower[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD, it does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. Sources in the article do not meet SIGCOV from IS RS. WP:BEFORE revealed directory style listings and government documents, nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Crescent Awards[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a "best blog" award with no strong claim of notability. As always, every award is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published web presence technically metaverifies its own existence -- just as with any other topic, the notability test is the reception of media coverage about it in reliable sources it didn't create itself. But, of course, the only sources present here are its own self-published web presence rather than any evidence of media attention being paid to it, and it's been flagged for that problem since 2009 without ever having any independent sources added. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 11 January 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 Model United Nations conferences. Up to editors whether to merge anything. Sandstein 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming High School Model United Nations[edit]

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

Non-notable high school conference. Fails WP:GNG. Searches turned up literally zero in-depth references from independent sources. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago International Model United Nations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEMS World Academy Model United Nations. Onel5969 TT me 00:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to List of Model United Nations conferences. This doesn't seem particularly notable for its own article, but it meets the requirements to be listed at the List of Model UN conferences article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge as per Herbfurs comment above. Does not meet notability criteria for an article of its own LordHarris 09:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.Serv181920 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually no program done by a high school is indepdently notable, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is an exception. I would also note that the article on Wyoming High School entirely fails to give us any indication of the broader history of the institution. High school articles have tended to be too narrowly focused on the present, while at the same time tending to be stuck reflecting the exact present when they were first created on Wikipedia and rarely undergoing regular updates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, or Delete if not Even as one of the two initial authors, I still believe the page should be deleted and/or redirected to Wyoming High School (Ohio).--Sethk03 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, or Delete if not As the other initial author, I agree with the previous recommendation that the page should be redirected to Wyoming High School (Ohio) or deleted. --Liamos1618 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 15 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_11&oldid=1001614882"