Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 13	January 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allen Baker[edit]

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

I'm genuinely struggling to think over the consistent blatant COI SPA accounts that have been consistently maintaining this article over the past 13 years, but I don't think there's quite enough to meet NAUTHOR. I found a couple of reviews in unremarkable publications. He's done some work, but I'd expect significantly more coverage to establish notability, particularly given that, according to our article, he has published hundreds of articles and over 25 books, drawn considerable attention to his work, has the distinction of being the only person to serve the International Boxing Hall of Fame as an author, historian, chairperson, sponsor, volunteer, and biographer. (I wonder why), his book even hit #1 on Amazon's List of Hot New Releases in Boxer Biographies-the book also hit #1 New Release in Jewish Biographies in December 2017. and don't worry, because he's an active member of the community &c &c &c ... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass alert: I saw this article thanks to the nominator raising it in a public chat. That said... delete, barring substantial improvements (I might have given the maintainers a week or two with a notability tag before AfD'ing, but I doubt it would have helped much). Everything is referenced to primary sources or irrelevant - the Connecticut Magazine link about Revolutionary era spies is dead, but even if it was up, who cares? If it backs up that list of spies, that doesn't mean Baker's work here was notable. The only non-primary source is an offline (and thus uncheckable) link that references the claim Baker "was active in the central New York music scene" during his undergraduate years at college. Who cares, that's true of thousands of people, "being active" doesn't show notability. On the off chance Baker really is notable, there need to be independent sources discussing Baker or his work - stuff like a book review of one of his 12 published works, and not a book review made by a blog or random Internet personality or the like. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The maintainer of the article has since added a bunch of sources, but... the vast majority are citing Mark Baker. That's still a primary source. The few references that don't cite Baker directly I can't verify - the link is to just the front page, not to the specific book review itself. Even if the link was fixed, these websites appear to be low tier sources, the equivalent of minor boxing fansites. The problem with primary sources hasn't been fixed. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, alarming lack of RS. The Hartford Courant article was written by the subject himself. Caro7200 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per WP:G12. I suspect that most of the article was written by the subject. Large swathes of content were taken and replicated verbatim from the "about the author" of his books. It appears to take little selections from each one (some are more egregious than others). I realise this action wouldn't settle the notability question, but for what it’s worth, I agree with the nominator. Subject doesn't meet NAUTHOR. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- G12 doesn't apply if the author themself is the one putting the content on Wikipedia. You can't infringe your own copyrights, and Wikipedia actively encourages donating such material under a free license. On the off chance that this author is notable, the copyvio isn't a concern assuming Baker was involved in or otherwise approves of this Wikipedia article (which he surely is, given the depth of minutiae only Baker or his close friends would know). SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SnowFire. Without a public disclosure that this was released to us, can we conclusively say that this was done by Baker? For all we know, it’s an ardent fan and follower of any social media channels. I'm not saying that's true; just that it’s possible. I'm really new to the AfD process, so set me right I'm wrong! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP editor who added those should affirm that they own the rights on the talk page. (If they wanted to be really by the book, they could file an ORTS ticket, but that is probably overkill and a waste of time for an article that is likely to be deleted anyway - just the talk page assertion would be fine for now.) SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree, really. The user in question created another, recently deleted article (which was entirely plagiarised -- 94% on Earwig's tool. I think it stands to reason that this is someone zealous, but I'm not convinced it’s the author. Nor do I think that this user thinks that main space is a user page; they are clearly reading this (your mention that they had added more "primary sources" resulted in them saying they had added secondary and tertiary sources; note that they are still interviews). I'm not convinced of notability, but I could be swayed. The main issue for me right now is this user's penchant for using intellectual property on here and not responding when pressed about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or maybe userfy, as at this point I am convinced that the creator literally thinks that this is a user page. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT, per WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:TNT. In 2007, we could have excused what is blatantly an autobiography; it was created by a SPA and heavily edited by a user who name is a shorter version of the word. 20 years in, everybody knows what Wikipedia is and is not. The references are terrible, the writer has not made a major contribution to literature, and the formatting is awful. We have deleted user pages that have been used for spamming and self-promotion. Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SALT and WP:TNT are incompatible -- 'blow it up and start over' is a different pitch to 'never start again'. Recommending them in the same breath sounds closer to 'dropping policy and essay acronyms that you think make your point' than genuinely making a strong argument. And regarding "Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences", the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to punish people for dumb things they did once. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and link the author WP:FAMOUS. This is...a messy one. It really does look like the author thinks he's in userspace. I suspect an explanation on what making a page for yourself means may well result in G7 speedy deletion, which would solve our problem for us. I'm currently working on an article that was a PRODded COI mess when I found it, so that firsthand experience with how to rescue such an article is informing my !vote here. (When I first saw this AfD, I put some serious thought to going on a deep-dive for actual information on the author...but I think I'd rather let him decide if he actually wants a Wikipedia page with all that comes with first.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The plagiarism issue has not yet been sold, but the sources are still failing to determine any actual notability. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just gone through the article more closely. Basically everything in the article fails even basic verification; links have no archived version and are hard redirects to main pages (or broken outright). Numerous problems with POV that indicate the subject or someone close to them is involved in the article. The editor started by writing an article filled with statements that break NPOV (and verifiability), and then tried to work backwards from there; the sources are always going to fail here, because they are only serving to provide an illusion of depth, rather than any meaningful content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a follow-up, the article's main (and really only) contributor has been banned for undisclosed COI and account sharing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ImaginesTigers --Jonalia (talk) 01:08, 23 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. Withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) Less Unless (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Cafiso[edit]

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

BLP with only reference his own website Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: aside from the nom's issues (which I agree), there appears to be a copyvio as well. ~RAM (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G12; the entire article is copied from a non-free source Spiderone 09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy delete. The copyright violation was added to the article 12 years after it was created, so this should simply be reverted (with revision delete if we are to be completely above-board) and a normal AfD discussion should take place. Doesn't anyone look at an article's history before commenting here? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another thing to do is to look at the same article in other languages. He's Italian, so the Italian one is the first place to look. It has multiple sources; I can't read Italian, so haven't opened them, but they're a good place to start. The Italian version has a discography, which shows that he's recorded for Venus Records, CAM Jazz and Verve Records, which means that he meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. AllMusic has reviews of lots of his albums, and finding other sources isn't difficult – enough for MUSICBIO #1. I'll add sources to the article later. EddieHugh (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added sourced material to the article and removed the rest. It's enough for the criteria that I mentioned, but let me know if more is wanted. EddieHugh (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katharyn, Kentucky[edit]

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

Not in Rennick's Bullitt County directory, and his index calls it a locale. Locales by definition lack legal recognition as a community, and generally fail WP:GEOLAND. Topos show a couple of buildings and a long siding near where the railroad goes by the military lands of Fort Know. Newspapers.com results such as this one refer to Katharyn as a station. WP:STATION is only an essay, so it doesn't carry that much weight, but it is still relevant. This references the railroad station at Katharyn. There's also a Katharyn Station Road and a Katharyn Station bridge, neither of which are notable. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up only the kind of references already discussed above. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks like yet another mass-produced junk article about some random place that happened to appear in a US government survey. Dronebogus (talk) 14:01, 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 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KonsolScript[edit]

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

Was deleted in 2008 and there is still nothing to suggest notability about this software. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: software was not notable when it was in date - what makes it notable 15 years later ~RAM (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the language. Easily fails WP:NSOFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Less Unless (talk) 11:35, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin McGrory[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL (see WP:FPL) and I can't find any sources that provide in-depth coverage of McGrory as an individual, so looks like this fails WP:GNG too. Every source I can find only mentions him in passing. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 11:38, 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. Consensus is that WP:BOOKCRIT #5 is not met and that the coverage does not rise to demonstrating notability. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper's Creek[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this over from the AfD talk page. I'm going to respond with the same note I did on the others: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note is that Goodreads coverage does not count towards notability since anyone can leave a review there. As such, any reviews on social media type sites of this nature or on e-commerce sites like Amazon will not count towards notability. Coverage of those reviews might, but the reviews themselves will not. The types of reviews that would count would be reviews in newspapers and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in the article, References do not support notability, my google did not find anything. Jeepday (talk) 18:35, 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 and redirect to Onision#Bibliography. Sandstein 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate you[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find coverage to justify this passing NBOOK. The only mention I could find was this, which would not be enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this over from the AfD talk page. I'm going to respond with the same note I did on the others: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not even wrong and lack of WP:RS - there are exactly zero articles or reviews about this book in any newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability in the article, References do not support notability, my google did not find anything. (same as "Reaper's Creek") Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Onision - not independently notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 21 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 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stones to Abbigale[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I found was this, which isn't enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from the talk page. In response: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Onision - not independently notable; can't find coverage in reliable, independent sources; just blogs and YouTube videos and the like Spiderone 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the other two, no evidence of notability in the article or found on google. I don't see a need for a redirect. Once the clean up is done there are no incoming links, and no reasonable reason for any to be looking on here for the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 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. Sandstein 10:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Mastal[edit]

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

Non notable actor with no indication of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The subject is only known for playing Hanuman in Ramayan and no significant roles played by him in multiple notable shows to pass WP:NACTOR. The article is filled with YouTube and press release sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added other works and making edits to enhance the page. I would be great if I get some suggestion or guidance from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0910 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subjects path to notability is via WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." From what I see his only significant role is in Ramayana the other seem pretty minor. This looks like a case of WP:NOTJUSTYET Jeepday (talk) 19:04, 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 merge to Gold Base. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Hot Springs, California[edit]

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

Here we have a bit of a problem. All evidence indicates that this was a hot springs resort, not a town. The problem is the last sentence of the article: "Gold Base, the international headquarters of the Church of Scientology, is located near Gilman Hot Springs." As the Gold Base article states, it and the former resort property are one and the same: it was purchased lock, stock, and barrel in 1978. My impression, regardless of the "History" section on the Sciento0logy facility, is that the resort wasn't terribly notable: I suspect the level of coverage is inherited from Scientology investigations. If people think otherwise, then the resort should have its own article and presumably this would redirect to that. I;m not keen on having this article redirect to Gold Base. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gold Base. The resort is not so super notable that having a seperate article on its time before being converted to Gold Base makes sense. One thing, one article applies here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Gold Base. Article does not meet GNG SIGCOV on its own, but selectively merging souced content to the appropriate place on the target article will improve the target article and make the content more visible and less fragmented for readers. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge the non-duplicative content to Gold Base. With the shared history, it's best to have it all in a single place. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 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. Whether to create a redirect to Reasonable accommodation is up to editors, but this doesn't strike me as an obvious search term for that concept. Sandstein 10:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Adjustment[edit]

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

Do not believe article meets the verifiability policy or notability/reliable sources guidelines.

Could not find any info on Google Search/Books/News/News archive.

No consensus among editors as to whether this is a real movement, as per page created by Benny Hutchinson, or a fictional one for an exhibition, as per edits from Iocheaira, with no citations for either POV. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:Justin Edgar, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. More already at Justin Edgar. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how edits work, so apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this. The artist set up the wikipedia page to promote the exhibiton as real, as per the art piece. The edits done to state it is fictional were done by me and my friends who found proof it was fake, and wanted to be able to inform people so they did not believe it as we initially did. I think there is value in the site staying up claiming it is fake as the advertising for it sponsored on social media was particularly harmful and contained lots of ableist slurs (under the guise of being a real 90's news report - it was not). Once again, I'm not sure how this works but I can send any proof if needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.135.75 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, this is helpful context. My interest in this article is also the concern about harm of mis/disinformation. Is the proof you found publicly available from a reliable source (eg. newspaper?). We can't include original research on Wikipedia, and please don't make public any private information, but if we can provide a citation that categorically says something either way that could provide a way forward. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to an interview with Edgar about the project. He talks about creating the Reasonable Adjustment Movement for the purposes of his exhibition around the 16 minute mark. This WP page was a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking the movement was real, probably, as Roger points out below, to advertise the exhibition. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.87 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an attempt to abuse WP to advertise an art exhibition. (See below) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTube is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes youtube is not a reliable source and it looks as though the original sources have been deleted by someone, perhaps a prankster? I suggest this is reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Hutchinson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That particular Youtube video is reliable per WP:RSPYT specifically for the artists' own statement that "Reasonable Adjustment" is a fictional topic that he created. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benny Hutchinson for adding additional sources to the article. Per the above discussion, I've added a 'disputed' template to the page. I've noted on the talk page that I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Deamer those "additional sources" do not actually exist, they are part of the whole fiction. The Youtube video that you reject is literally the artist himself explaining that it is fiction that he made up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger - I don't reject the YouTube video, I added it to the article in the first place after it was mentioned above :) I suspect the same as you RE: those additional sources. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Deamer the article does not currently say that it is fictional, which the video conclusively proves. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE do not delete this page - it is vital for showing people that this is fictional. People believe this is real and are distressed about it.

I'm trying to edit the article to reflect this but I would really appreciate some help. The Bedford Sentinel is not a newspaper, it is a sculpture. The West London Obsever was a paper that finished in 1957. The Salford Mail simply does not exist. Squitchtweak (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation - based on the above discussion, I now believe this should be turned into a disambiguation page. It should highlight that the group is fictional, and point readers to two places, 1) the relevant section of Justin Edgar, and 2) the Reasonable accommodation article, as this concept is referred to in the Equality Act 2010 as "reasonable adjustment". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple redirect to reasonable accommodation is sufficient as this article's subject does not come close to even meet the most lenient interpretation of notability. If the exhibition manages to re-open after the current pandemic and then becomes properly notable as a work of art we can reconsider our options. Right now it doesn't even rate a disambiguation link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair Roger. My concern was the above comment that having something here is "is vital for showing people that this is fictional", and that this does sound valuable. But I know Wikipedia can't debunk every non-notable falsehood! On that basis, redirect. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is notable as it's been shown in multiple prominent galleries and caused controversy and noatable hoaxing. There is plenty to be written on it's construction and controversy Squitchtweak (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some sourcing from ArtsHub Australia, but this does not create notability by itself. A lot of primary sourcing (or what appears to be primary). There are also citations to fake newspapers.. and the article goes on to talk about how those newspapers are fake, citing to the Wikipedia page's own edit history... altogether, very confusing. So, is it a hoax, or is the article about hoax? Either way, I think it fails notability guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add - Per discussion above, a redirect at Reasonable accommodation can be created if it is a reasonable search term, but this page, with caps, serves no independent purpose. And a redirect may come with a retention of the page history, which would not serve a proper purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:38, 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) 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Borden Inc.[edit]

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

Article is on a New York art gallery; NCORP fail. I did manage to find four sources, but two are interviews and one was a single line in the New York Times confirming the date they opened. There is basically no in-depth independent coverage available. Possibly (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I found sources establishing notability for Janet Borden as an artist. I have copied a line about the gallery to that new article. I think she's the notable topic (by our standard) and this one, Janet Borden Inc., can be safely redirected. Possibly (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, are you sure? None of the sources at Janet Borden say she's an artist. It's a hard case to make that the person is notable but the business is not, when they are so closely connected. I don't see that Borden is notable for anything except as a gallerist. I'd support renaming and keeping this page as a redirect. Vexations (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: She's a photographer herself with two works in permanent collections?Possibly (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK it seems likely I have this wrong about her being an artist. But: the Smithsonian did have her in the list of artists in their collection! Vexations, can you confirm the facts? Possibly (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, Yeah, it's not very clear. The work on https://americanart.si.edu/artist/janet-borden-6597 is by Mark Cohen, from a portfolion published by Borden. https://collections.eastman.org/objects/550523/janet-borden is portrait of Borden, by photographer JoAnn Verburg. Vexations (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I nominated Janet Borden for CSD. I don't see either as being notable now. Possibly (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it is hard to separate the artist and the company, but number 95 on this list https://books.google.com/books?id=xGCjXTVpv-0C&pg=PA85&dq=%22Janet+Borden+Inc.%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0wavx94LuAhUQ1lkKHVK0DCoQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Janet%20Borden%20Inc.%22%20-wikipedia&f=false combined with several google book hits, make me lean keep. The article could be improved, my google results suggest the things that meet WP:GNG are not well documented in the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepday, please note that Borden is NOT an artist. As an aside, I thought it was interesting that we don't have an article on the #4 on that list: Maria Morris Hambourg, the #7, Weston Naef or the#18, Rick Wester. We seem to be better at wring biographic articles on photographers than on curators and gallerists. Vexations (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP, and WP:CREATIVE - this was never notable, and is not notable. I consider myself something of a "culture vulture" in New York, and I've never heard of this gallery. And it appears for good reasons: there are exactly zero newspaper articles about this company. Almost every gallery in the New York scene has a "stable" of several notable(?) artists that it represented from time to time, which then gets them a little, passing coverage, so such a factor is not determinative. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found several mentions, but they are passing. There's no significant coverage. Less Unless (talk) 12:01, 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 merge to Tutoring. Sandstein 10:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor (education)[edit]

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

I prodded this with "No evidence this occupation/job/position is notable. Could redirect to tutoring." (since having both of those articles separately seems pointless, also WP:POVFORK, etc.). Prod was removed with no comment, which leads me to conclude that the proposed redirect would be disputed too. So let's discuss it here. Can this be rescued? Or deleted/redirected? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Ping User:Reywas92 who expressed interest in this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirecting to Tutor seems inappropriate, as that target has a subject-area focus whereas the present article concerns "pastoral (as opposed to academic) care", an aspect falling under meaning 2 in Wiktionary. Is there more here than a job title dicdef? Unless a material history of emergence, of challenges and changes in the role can be identified, this seems to fail WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject here is the role of the tutor in a college where it is usually a formal title. The exact duties and responsibilities will vary, depending on the institution and its use of the tutorial system. My own experience was at Cambridge University where, as the article explains, a student has both a Director of Studies, who is a subject-matter expert in the student's faculty, while the Tutor is responsible for other aspects of the student's life. Other institutions may combine the roles. Anyway, the topic is notable as it is easy to find sources including:

The role of the College Tutor
The personal tutor–student relationship: student expectations and experiences of personal tutoring in higher education
Student and Tutor Perceptions of the Role of the Tutor in a Sixth Form College
The role of the tutor in a college of further education
The role of personal tutor in nurse education: towards an understanding of practice in a college of nursing and midwifery
The changing role of the college tutor in support of trainee teachers
Tutors and Teaching

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, perhaps a different disambig would be a good start. With the current (education) disambiguator it makes me think it's just a general tutor, ie. someone that helps you with your homework. Maybe changing it to (higher education) would help to distinguish the difference, as I think leaving it at education encompasses primary & secondary education as well, which this article doesn't apply. ~RAM (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a lot that can be done to improve this weak stub and so WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Repeated deletion nominations aren't helping. See WP:INSPECTOR. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to address the issue of why we need separate articles about tutor and tutoring. WP:POVFORK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. We have different pages for teachers and teaching, for example. They are not the same thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And oh, your links are wrong. Teaching redirects to education. I think it is reasonable to have a separate article on the major profession of a teacher. But frankly tutor might well benefit from being merged there anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tutoring: Agree with the nom. A redirect to tutoring page would be an appropriate disposition. ~RAM (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Tutor. No need for a separate article. And all tutors are involved with education, so a pointless disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect; while this is definitely a distinct concept, there is not enough material here (and not enough references) to warrant it being a distinct article. And it's not like they overlap. jp×g 05:39, 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) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Maya Effect[edit]

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

Article does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Not enough material for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, Paci Dalò and Scanner are two of the pioneers in the electronic music and this collaborative album needs to be improve and notable 9.01.2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.117.222 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your claim is original research; and if you think the article can be improved, please feel free to do so. HĐ (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume the IP above is the article creator Miro070520, whose edits to Wikipedia have been mostly related to Roberto Paci Dalò, and who has created articles of dubious notability for other albums by this artist. It's true that Dalò and Rimbaud (Scanner) are considered at the forefront of experimental electronic music, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their albums pass WP:NALBUM themselves – here the review in Blow Up magazine seems to be the only reliable source available. I can't find anything about Dalò in the archives of The Wire, which is the British magazine most likely to have covered him. Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 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) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Nur Alam Chowdhury[edit]

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

Non-notable union politician (Unions are the smallest rural administrative and local government units in Bangladesh), fails WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn’t received significant press coverage. Best Chairman isn’t notable award. Meeting with a high commissioner doesn’t make someone notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is a Union politician doesn't mean they are non-notable. For many countries, there are Wiki pages for notable local community leaders and councillors, especially if they have had a great impact. You are also incorrect, Unions are not the smallest rural administrative and local government units in Bangladesh, they are further divided into Wards (and then villages). SalamAlayka (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually local politicians like Union politician aren't notable, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. How he was notable, What kind of great impact he had? Show us with WP:RS please. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete politicians at the local level are gnerally not notable. We have a lot of crufty articles at this level that need to go but have not. We should not allow the fact that we poorly regulate the creation of articles on this level and fail to enforce our own guidelines justify keeping articles on clearly non-notable people at this level and further ignoring our own guidelines. Wikipedia is still paying for the original sins of the 2001-2006 time period and having virtually no limits to what sort of articles were created. For example earlier today I nominated for deletion an article that had existed since 2005 and has 0 sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person is genuinely notable. He is not only a local politician, but a nationally awarded one and was also director of banks, boards and many other organisations. He is a historical figure.SalamAlayka (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already said Best Chairman isn’t notable award. And bank may be notable but no, director of bank isn’t automatically notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local politicians are not notable.~Yahya (✉) • 19:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Case Management Network[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, given how Case Management Society of America was deleted it's clear this association is not notable either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 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 no consensus. Trending towards keep. Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Earle Sullivan[edit]

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

Pretty thin claim to notability. A BLM activist who filmed inside the capitol during the storming. Not quite BLP1E as some other charges relating to BLM protests and he runs a small activist group. A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance. His importance is perhaps shown by his funding page which has reached the grand total of £5 out of a £2000 target.[1] and 3000 Twitter followers.[2][3]. When we look at what he has actually done its: failed to make the Olympic squad, attended a BLM protest where another protestor shot someone and was charged for damaging a vehicle; holding a one-man armed protest in Utah; took a lot of videos on the 6th and managed to film the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, got arrested alongside 100's of others. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think what would be more important than the number of Twitter followers someone has is how often reliable sources report on them, and Sullivan has been interviewed dozens of times by reliable publications throughout 2020-2021 for his activism and reporting. As far as the 5/2000 dollars on "BuyMeACoffee.com" given that this is a monthly goal I expect the total donation quantity resets at some unspecified rollover period? No idea why you cited that coffee slush fund (is that something you can only buy drinks with?) when his GoFundMe at com/f/johnsullivanlegalaidfund raised $1,534 in merely a month. You can also see ANOTHER one at com/f/Insurgencesdefensefund that raised $375. I'm not sure we should rely on our original research to get a conclusive picture of the total sum of donations this activist has received as he appears to simultaneously run an unknown quantity of discrete fundraising efforts. WakandaQT (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm leaning more toward keep. I just went to Google News and searched for his name and it came back with over eleven million results and I expect that number to rise. So I think there's notability. Progressingamerica (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LOLOL, it's only 1,530 in GNews for "John Earle Sullivan", this is a very common name...WP:LOTSOFGHITS. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy draftify Too soon right now, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP1E does not apply, he's notable for more than a single event. Jan 2021 is just the most recent one: there's June 2020 and July 2020 protests covered for him too, plus the coverage of his speed-skating tryouts by KSL-TV in Jan 2018. WakandaQT (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is absolutely not notable for appearing at the previous protests. He's absolutely not notable for being within the coverage of the many people who participated in the skating trials. Minor non-notable interview + minor non-notable tryout + 1E news != notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - How many of the other skaters got commercial deals with Uber though? WakandaQT (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gimme a break, if we had an article about every person featured in some sort of corporate advertising campaign.... Non-notable commercial appearance + non-notable tryout + 1E news != notability. He's either notable for this crime, and this is a minor background fact, or he's not. I stand that with scores of people being arrested in the past week and covered in the news, he is not individually notable but mention in another article is welcome. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even the Rolling Stone article about his arrest at https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-jayden-x-maga-riot-interview-1112949/ shows that? Or the articles about his activism on two separate instances the preceding year? WakandaQT (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Historians will eventually try to maintain a list of all the people who stormed the building. There should probably be a Wikipedia article about that. Each entry in the list could have a small bio and include a description of the things the person did once inside. The currently discussed article could be merged into that list if it cannot survive on its own. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already coverage of "notable arrests and charges" in the sub-article Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. That might already go beyond what is permissible per WP:BLPCRIME though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this "activist" is not notable for attending any of the events listed in the current article, not even the insurrection he himself attended. WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E are also reasons to delete. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's WP:SIGCOV: see the Intercept, Rolling Stone, Gehrke's article. I think there was perhaps a weak argument for an article before, but the most recent event makes it a very strong case. tedder (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. The recent additions make it clear this is not someone notable for a single event only. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom mentions it's not quite BLP1E, I'd say it's no even close; he was covered prior to January 6, and the coverage since references that coverage, noting patterns in his interactions with various groups. Also from the nom, "A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance." This is IMO a reason in favor of having Wikipedia coverage: When people read about him in sources of varying quality, they should be able to get context by reading a Wikipedia article that places their claims in context, and points to the best sources. All that said, the article does appear longer than it needs to be. This needn't be an exhaustive record of his work, but rather a guide to finding the sources that go into more detail. So I'd be fine with a major cut of the size of the article, and some rethinking of which pieces belong here. None of that need occur in an AFD discussion though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has notability in Chinese news as well. And as someone stated above, he was also covered prior to January 6. So I think there is sufficient notability. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E suggests avoiding having an article "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." And the Capitol incident is significant and he agitated violence in the Capitol. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's getting national press coverage, and not just in conservative media (not that such bias would be disqualifying). Here's a full-story profile in the Washington Post. Just because almost no one wants to give him money doesn't make him any less notable; that seems to be more a function of disapproving of his actions. -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He doesn't seem to be notable for pre-1/6 activities or meet WP:GNG for them. His notability seems to derive from the storming of the capitol but WP:ONEEVENT applies to that, and he does not seem to have played enough of a role to warrant his own article. Any content should be able to be dealt with in the main article and forks including the "aftermath" article (there is already a paragraph about him there). His article also suffers recentism problems and is unlikely to pass the WP:TENYEARTEST.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I feel the need to reiterate my suspicion people don't read WP:BLP1E, because he passes as well as anyone. I suspect failure of the ten-year test would require nuclear holocaust between now and 2031 such as to make every other issue pale in comparison; recentism is an issue (not to be confused with "this will be a footnote in a decade"!), mostly by way of many-not-all of his events being in fact recent, and I expect the matter to settle naturally as we get increasingly far from blast radius. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep measures up to GNG as per copious sources. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable activist is a glaring case of WP:BLP1E. KidAd talk 23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:BLP1E does not apply in this case with point 2 and possibly point 3. There are alot of sources that covered Sullivan's involvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of media mention Sullivan including many conspiracy theory sites (e.g. David Icke). They use him to try to prove the 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol was covertly created by Antifa, I came here to read facts about him. People rely on Wikipedia to provide these facts, if this article wasn't here they might believe conspiracy theory media. 51.6.235.58 (talk) 00:59, 22 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. Slightly early close as there are questions about the nomination and zero chance this would be deleted. StarM 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Delany[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:NPOL, as he has been a member of a legislative body at the national level. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. This is not the first time that I have had to correct the nominator's assertion that a subject fails that guideline when he clearly passes. It's fine to make mistakes, but they shouldn't be repeated after they have been pointed out. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although consensus can change, it's well-established that parliamentarians are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly and obviously passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Did the proposer even read the guidelines? It reads - "Politicians and judges who have held international, national office" - Seanad Éireann (Irish Senate) is the upper house of the Irish parliament. A quick 2 min search would have shown this. WP:TROUT for you! Spleodrach (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and please take action against the nominator: The nominator is just simply nominating the articles for deletion. He is not following WP:Before. Please see these two discussions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guruvayur_Padmanabhan and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kongad_Kuttisankaran#Kongad_Kuttisankaran . Both are bad nominations along with this one. I request the administrator to take action against the nominator. Because he has been warned 4 times, but is not stopping this action. Thankyou Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some referencing improvement, so by all means tag it for {{refimprove}}, but having verifiably served in the Oireachtas is a clear and unequivocal pass of WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 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. Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aikatsu Planet! characters[edit]

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

This series has only aired TWO episodes. The main article is small and doesn't need to be split into separate articles. Additionally, this list fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you start an AFD instead of dealing with this through normal discussion and editing? There has been zero talk page activity on either this or the parent article. We need to stop resorting to a deletion forum with a time limit when we're dealing just with questions of how to organize content across multiple articles, whether to split subtopics, or what level of detail is appropriate for a given subject. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I agree that this is an unnecessary for for something just started in December, but this would at least give time and address the concerns raised by postdlf above. It probably should have started in draft space anyway in order to start the potential discussion mentioned above. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nom pretty much covers it. Dark knight 2149 01:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Link20XX (talk) 00:55, 22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kongad Kuttisankaran[edit]

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

Elephants don’t meet notability guidelines here. Fails WP:GNG –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The elephant is highly notable and has more than enough coverage from reliable sources and I would strongly discourage anyone from !voting delete before we've had anyone here who speaks malayalam other than me 06:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: As the article creator you are usually expected to vote keep. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a notable figure in Kerala and a major participant in Thrissur Pooram. Also the elephant has recieved broad coverage from multiple reliable sources that can pass the WP:GNG. BestwishesPoppified ^talk 05:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt that proper steps are not followed here while nominating an article for deletion. Between this edit [4] and this edit [5], the nominator only took 2 minutes for nominating. The user hasnt done proper WP:Before before doing the nomination. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that the nominator did a BEFORE search before creating this AfD. Edits are quite close together but that, in itself, isn't evidence that suggests that one wasn't done. Spiderone 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also nominated another stub article for deletion where he took only 1 minute. He also blindly says Elephants don’t meet notability guidelines here. Wikipedias notability criteria clearly says a topic is notable to have its own standalone article if it has enough coverage from multiple sources. Here the elephant is covered in multiple independent sources. I request the nominator to clarify what he meant by elephants not notable here. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References on the page show WP:GNG is met. Category:Elephants and its 17 sub-categories would suggest that elephants can be notable. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, passing WP:GNG Spiderone 18:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidence of notability has been provided. Suggest some clean-up for tone but article is fine otherwise. StarM 14:27, 21 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 Monty Don. Sandstein 10:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel (dog)[edit]

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

Dogs usually don’t meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they don't. This one certainly does. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had the dog been an animal actor it’d be a different story. Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are aware of the huge public following this dog had on UK television. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most people don't usually meet the guidelines but that doesn't mean we delete all articles about people. This particular dog is notable and so we have an article about this particular dog, just as we have many articles about other dogs. We even had an article about a particular tree on the main page yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect with/to Monty Don. Not independently notable. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dogs, cats, trees, hedges, fictional insects.... They all go together. Whether buried in Monty Don's Longmeadow garden or not. You know it makes sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. 2,545 views so far[reply]
~~Keep/~~Merge - The fact that its a dog has no bearing on notability if there are sources covering him, and this dog certainly seems to have ample coverage. I'm a bit torn between keeping it as a stand alone article or merging it to the wider coverage on Monty Don, but straight deletion would definitely not be appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments below have swayed me towards the opinion that a Merger would be the better way to organize the information here, so I am updating my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with you there. WP:N says that passing GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." which seem to me to be the basic issue here. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: I would say its a bad nomination. On going through the edit history of the nominator, I found that he hasnt done any WP:Before before nominating for deletion. For some edits, he just only took 2 minutes. It clearly indicates the lack of guidelines followed here. Kashmorwiki (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss the notability of Nigel the dog not to discuss the nominator Spiderone 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to Monty Don: The notability for the subject is completely meshed with the target. Not everything needs a stand alone article. This content will improve the target article and an unnecessary split will just fragment the content for no reason to the detriment of the reader. // Timothy :: t | c | a 14:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - primarily with the Monty Don article. Nigel the dog certainly had a public profile, but it was not one that was independent of Monty Don. People looking for information on Nigel would probably expect to find it in Monty Don's article as he was his owner. Equally I think it is reasonable to expect the Monty Don article to cover his association with Nigel, particularly as it is clear he was an important companion to Monty. Not sure that a redirect is needed as I can't see Nigel (dog) being something someone would enter. It might also be worth mentioning Nigel in the [Gardeners' World]] article which he does not seem to currently be mentioned on. Dunarc (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the Monty Don article. William Harris (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Monty Don per Timothy. Cavalryman (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Note - Shep (British dog).Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, and I am a dog person, but I still think Merge into Monty Don is the best answer here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with the merge arguments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not enough about the dog, most of it is highly related to the owner. Seems to fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 22 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. WP:SNOW. A redirect looks reasonable and I shall create one following deletion here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Aliganga[edit]

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

A clear case of WP:1E. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. No notability under WP:SOLDIER; simply being killed in an attack does not mean one played an important part. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, complete WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye and Mztourist.Intothat darkness 20:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Peter303x (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. Zawed (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although a redirect to 1998 United States embassy bombings should be considered by the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. --ERAMnc 13:02, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Nanchang mass suicide protest[edit]

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

An obvious hoax. The title of the article clearly says this event was based on "mass suicide", but there is no evidence this was the case if one traces the reliable sources (if any). Normchou ^💬 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Normchou ^💬 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, local internet hoaxes are not worthy of an article. Jumpytoo Talk 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself says that "Mr Jiang (蔣) and his son were responsible for spreading the false suicide news", so even the article itself calls its own validity into question. Also per the reasoning of Spiderone and Normchou. PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 12:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this event. WP:NOTNEWS. JayJay^{What did I do?} 08:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing had happened. STSC (talk) 06:36, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Banister[edit]

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

Resume on Wikipedia. The page cites the subject's linkedin and angel.co pages, and a number of sources that are about other things. The Politico article names him only to attribute quotes, and the New York Times article is a list of names without commentary on him. Lacks coverage in WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search reveals next to nothing on the subject. As per WP:N does not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Not notable. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:14, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinked[edit]

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

No reliable sources besides passing mention in the LA times. Seems to fail WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INtelligent Data Understanding System[edit]

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

PROD declined on the grounds that sources were found to confirm it exists. It does indeed. However, these are not independent and I can find no evidence this is a notable initiative. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for notability since the tail end of 2009. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KM. Annamalai[edit]

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

In general fails WP:BASIC, WP:NPROF. No WP:SIGCOV to establish nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even know what notability criterion this guy is supposed to meet. Certainly not NPROF, as he's not a professor, and I couldn't find any publications by him in Scopus so NACADEMIC also fails. Seems extremely non-notable. JoelleJay (talk) 06:17, 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. Can be draftified or userfied via WP:REFUND (not by me). Sandstein 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tunedly.com[edit]

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

Promotional page with no evidence of notability. The few cited sources that are actually about the company are not substantial coverage (JamSphere and Tech.co both only point to the company's existence and their coverage may not be independent). The page was moved from the draft namespace by the author citing the AfC help desk, but the only discussion of the article there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_November_16#07:59:20,_16_November_2020_review_of_draft_by_Yiyeant which does not indicate approval. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: There are sufficient resources in several of the references to give this page notability. However, the page needs significant improvement. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is created through other articles such as https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9341275/how-music-companies-giving-back-during-coronavirus-pandemic/, https://siliconprairienews.com/2017/09/capital-innovators-announces-fall-2017-accelerator-class/, https://www.billboard.com/index.php/articles/business/8275790/executive-turntable-tunein-coalition-agency-tunedly-advisory-board, https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8498623/executive-turntable-warner-chappell-downtown/, https://musicmecca.org/music-business-spotlight-online-recording-publishing-platform-tunedly/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.80.6 (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FalconK's nomination says "Promotional page with no evidence of notability", and that just about sums it up. Contrary to what Whiteguru and the IP editor have said, neither the sources cited in the article nor the links given by the IP editor go anywhere towards showing notability. They include a lot of pages with just brief mentions of Tunedly, mere announcements of appointments or other business moves, unambiguously promotional or otherwise non-independent sources, and so on. Most of them don't even look remotely like substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, and the few that at first glance look as though they may be, turn out on closer examination not to be. (For example, looking one of them which at first looked as though it might be useful I found that half way down the page it referred to Tunedly as "we". I then discovered other reasons why it wasn't an acceptable source.)

There is clearly consensus that the page should not remain as an article, and the only point open to question is whether it should be draftified or simply deleted. Draftification is fine for an article that has too many faults to be acceptable as an article in its present state but is on a notable topic, but here we are dealing with a topic with no evidence of notability, so there is no justification for draftifying the article. JBW (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. Needs some work, but I can see this being an article. jp×g 06:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as UPE spam. Blablubbs|talk 15:25, 21 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. Deletion arguments referenced policy, the only keep argument did not. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christian School (Kelowna)[edit]

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

This article was kept at AFD in 2012 under the then-existing consensus that K-12 schools were presumptively notable. In 2017, that consensus was reversed: schools must now satisfy WP:ORG. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This article does not meet WP:ORG: it is sourced only to the school's website. I can find nothing online except routine news coverage, most of it revolving around athletics and COVID-19 cases. It does not approach the multiple significant independent reliable secondary sources that are required. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is no where near what we expect for an organization. To be fail a lot of our high school articles have been grandfathered in under the old system, but since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we should not grandfather in any articles. All the more so because our early inclusion criteria were virtually non-existent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the community where this school is located has a number of schools with articles; removing just this one and leaving the others is inappropriate when notability level are similar: Kelowna#Education--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to it lacking the sourcing needed to be notable. Also, not sure what Epiphyllumlover is talking about, but it sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this schools is non-notable, than neither are the other schools in this community. The most obvious solution is to make an article for all of the schools and merge it in. Or just leave them all alone. But to single out one to delete makes no sense.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. lacks SIGCOV from IS RS to pass ORGCRIT. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep and merging lots of non-notable articles into one big non-notable article will not improve the situation. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:46, 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) 03:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny and the Spoon[edit]

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

I'm just not sure this group is really notable. Sourcing is either mentions in local alternative press or reviews from blogs and so forth. (and youtube and the band's own website, which seems to be defunct) Beeblebrox (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I share the same concern about the local coverage that the band has, but I also found https://www.wvxu.org/post/shiny-and-spoon-box-bullets#stream/0 and https://www.citybeat.com/music/music-feature/article/13006795/banded-together . Perhaps rescuing the sources in the article will prove useful as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your logic. WVXU is a local station and the piece you cited identifies itself a s local music blog, City Beat is the local alternative press I referred to in my nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the available info they don't meet WP:BAND criteria. The award they won is non-notable, since it doesn't have a Wiki page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite popular belief, every subject has to be notable according to the basic notability guideline (WP:N). The subject does not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources therefore should not be included as per the guideline. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes they received some local newspaper coverage which could help their case, but per #7 at WP:NBAND they have not been described in that coverage as particularly noteworthy in their city. A lack of coverage everywhere else means they do not reach any of the other WP:NBAND requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type 85 submachine gun[edit]

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

Content is a paraphrase of https://modernfirearms.net/en/submachine-guns/china-submachine-guns/tip-85-eng/ without any other refs or indication of notability. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems popular enough to have several independent articles talking about it, and ~~only that type~~edit: these articles have predecessor types too. Those should be incorporated into the page. The much more immediate problem is that this entire page not only relies on a single source, but plagiarized from it. That needs to be entirely rewritten. OfficerCow (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OfficerCow: could you provide said sources? I had difficulty finding them. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dump a few here: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Perhaps the three types could be merged into a single article? OfficerCow (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no strong opinion on merging vs deleting vs fixing the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quick search, and it looks like there are a number of sources supporting the subject of this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News results suggest sufficient notability. imv VocalIndia (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs improvement. STSC (talk) 06:48, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Stellakis[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant titleholder. Does not pass WP:GNG or standards in place by WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) as the winner of the United States Miss Earth 2016 which is a national qualifier for one of the big four pageants, as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above suggested criteria were specifically rejected as a guide to notability. This article does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass Wikipedia's basic notability guideline (WP:N). Every subject must receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources or it does not belong as the guideline is currently written. SNG's can be used to presume notability for article creation but do not confer actual notability which must be upheld by the N when brought before AfD. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:27, 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Nutcracker Christmas[edit]

(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 12:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree OswaldClara (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 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]

Keep. Was nominated for Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Children's Programs in 2016. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We only have so much time in life so I don't understand why some people choose to spend all of their time on Wikipedia contemptuously destroying other people's work instead of doing something productive. --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a reason for keeping? Because this is not one. BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic we should scrap AfD and the PROD and CSD processes. Deletion is a necessary evil. SK2242 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Donaldd23. matt91486 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Behalten) In Germany darf jeder Film einen Artikel haben, sobald er gesendet wurde. Ich schreibe übrigens gerade an der deutschen Version! VG --Goldmull (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Establishes notability through awards and additional reception. Archrogue (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The formatting and arguments of this discussion has me cracking up. Geschichte (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments are all quite weak. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Lembeck#Film - The most notable thing about the film is that it was nominated, but did not win, an award. Aside from that, the coverage is actually pretty weak. For example, both of the "reviews" being used in the reception section are nothing more than a couple sentence summaries of the plot and a score. I tried looking for some additional, more in-depth reviews in reliable sources, and wasn't able to find anything - the best I could come up with is this entry in a Listicle. The director, however, is notable, and the film and information on its nomination for the award, which again appears to be the only remotely notable thing about it, is already described there, so Redirecting there should be adequate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is not very productive. !Voting "keep" because "We only have so much time in life" is plain silly. !Voting in German is not very courteous on the English WP and, in addition, it is absolutely irrelevant what other wikis find notable or not. Being nominated (but not winning) for an award does not appear to be enough to establish notability. At this point, the one !vote for redirection appears to be the most solid one. Relisting one more time in the hope some more serious discussion will ensue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awards, themselves, do not confer notability. They may be used to presume notability but you run the risk of it coming to AfD and being subjected to the actual notability guideline for ALL of Wikipedia which is WP:N. The nominator is correct in that if the subject does not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources then it doesn't matter whether we like something or not, it doesn't belong. That may mean we have all wasted a lot of time here but that's the rule of measure we have to go by. Subject doesn't meet this so therefore doesn't belong. If you want to merge or redirect I don't so much care but it doesn't warrant a stand alone article. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in any actual reliable sources. Fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Not even notable actors involved. I’m sorry people get their feelings hurt about deletion but the best advice is to save it in your iPhone notes or a Word document in case you have reason to revisit it. 🤷‍♀️ Trillfendi (talk) 19:33, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Ridhwan[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article. Don't seem to be notable. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 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 and redirect to USS Quentin Walsh. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Walsh[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Captain (United States O-6) doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the planned USS Quentin Walsh can be set out on that page Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although one award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Captain (United States O-6) doesn't make him notable per WP:SOLDIER, he did play an important part in a notable event, which has attracted WP:GNG coverage, and there is clearly sufficient material to construct a good article about him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By notable event do you mean D-Day? Was his role really "important"? Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Quentin Walsh. SOP for people who don't pass SOLDIER, but do have a ship named after them. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article about namesake ship. Intothat darkness 20:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable. I see no evidence that his role in D-Day was "an important part".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 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. The strongest arguments showed there were not sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bergman, California[edit]

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

This arguably could have been speedied given that it's a 4th class PO sourced to Durham with no GNIS trace and no likely candidate on the topos, but since there is a second source, here we are. Unfortunately that source also identifies it only as a PO, so I see a failure of notability here. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a post office named after your place typically establishes it as an actual populated place, which passes WP:GEOLAND, and notability is not temporary. While there are rare cases where this is not the case, such as postal facilities serving an institution, this is clearly not the case here and if it were, we should merge/redirect rather than delete. Smartyllama (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4th class post offices were ubiquitous as dirt and only slightly less ephemeral than houseflies— and far more peripatetic. On top of that they changed names frequently as they were moved about, as they were commonly named after the person who owned the house or store where the post office sat, or his wife, for that matter. It's not much of an exaggeration to equate them with the group mailboxes one sees in recent developments. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since this was not a legally recognized place, it needs to meet GNG per GEOFEAT for populated places without legal recognition. There is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple sources [10][11] describe this as a stagecoach station and a ranch. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pumpsdups (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Chen[edit]

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

Fails in GNG. Non-neutral content. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pumpsdups (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samata (fashion entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Poorly written. Fails in passing notability. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly written is not a notability criterion. Please do a WP:BEFORE to make any action on the page. Current sources indicate that she passes WP:BASIC. Some of the sources are listed below.

https://www.huffpost.com/author/samata https://www.forbes.pl/pierwsza-konferencja-o-zrownowazonym-rozwoju-w-regionie-cee-business-fashion/e6k7dgb https://www.vogue.co.uk/blogs/the-green-style-blog/2011/02/25/red-carpet-green-dress-winner https://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/red-women-of-the-year/g503386/20-under-30/image=7 Setreis (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Hi Setreis, Thanks for pointing out. As per links mentioned by you. I think she qualifies notability guidelines. I will withdraw my nomination. Also, I am sorry if I caused any issues as I am still learning Wikipedia. Pumpsdups (talk) 20:33, 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. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Goodman (police officer)[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. I suggest delete and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. If he gets the Medal of Honor (unclear if he can, since his acts of heroism were not related to his military service), he might meet WP:SOLDIER, but that's an essay. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

merge to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, where the only mention of Goodman is incidental (in the title of a referenced news report). Other than that I agree: classic WP:BLP1E. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. He has been credited as the hero of the Storming of the Capitol for single-handedly saving the U.S. Senate from the mob. His extraordinary bravery has received in-depth coverage in major publications across the country and the world. It would be truly upside-down for the numbskull with the furry horned hat to have an article (AfD'd but kept as notable), while then deleting the article on the actual hero of the historic day. Cbl62 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furry horned hat man hasn't been kept yet: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli. I agree it would be egregious if we kept one and not the other. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe it is right to keep this page; I also strongly disagree with keeping an insurrectionist article whilst they are still living, as it would be an encouragement for such people to pursue worldwide publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by APaul2020 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per WP:BLP1E, (see comment below) especially in the absence of the Medal of Honor. The first two conditions of BLP1E are easily met, and Goodman meets the third prong in that his role in the storming was not "substantial". This is most clearly demonstrated by noting that a full expansion of his "role" would only take up two more sentences than what's currently in the article (explanation of him walking up the stairs, seeing the open hallway, pushing a rioter and walking the other way). There's very little possibility that this article will be expanded by further analysis of what he did on Jan. 6, because his notability is almost entirely contained in one short video. While I understand the desire to compare to Jake Angeli, that person clearly had a much larger role as one of the primary faces/well-documented leaders of the riots. Plus other stuff exists, etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that his role was not as "substantial" as Jake Angeli. IMO his single-handedly saving the United States Senate from an advancing mob was quite a "substantial" contribution ... to the events of the day ... to American democracy ... and, yes, more substantial than a numbskull in costume living in his mother's basement. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the question were "whose name do I hope will be remembered in the future", then I would obviously fully agree with you. But that's not what we're asking here. Assuming the second prong of BLP1E (that he remains low profile in the future), I don't see what further expansion to this article is possible without drifting into hypotheticals and OR (or just biographical facts totally unrelated to the event). Analysis like this is fleshed out by discussion what he may have prevented + commentary over a one minute video. Compare that to Angeli, where his actions drove news before, during, and after the coup. I think that "substantial" here is defined by importance within the scope of the event itself, not our emotional response to the person outside of the event.

I also didn't bring this up in my original comment because it's slightly outside of WP policy, but I full agree with Innisfree's comment about unwanted attention. I'm extremely hesitant to add more of a spotlight onto someone who will almost certainly be targeted for what he did. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a lot of reservations (I think my statement that his actions within the riots would only take up two sentences is holding), but after an additional week of following coverage of the insurrection I think Goodman's actions meet the "substantial" requirement of BLP1E. RS's consistently single him out and identify his actions as important. I still find comparisons to Angeli completely irrelevant, but at this point the coverage of Goodman meets 1E/GNG. Keep -- Alyo (chat·edits) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Passes WP:GNG. This person is referenced regularly both with and without context, and will continue to be for years. As a result many people search to find out who he is and providing that information is a core role of Wikipedia. aerotheque (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Still considering but tend to think TOOSOON. Additionally in borderline BLP cases I believe it’s proper to consider the preference of the living person affected by our decision and here the attention appears unwanted by the otherwise low-profile subject. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per nom. Fails BLP1E. The reason we have BLP1E is for this exact situation. This is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK, and fails the guidelines for one. I might suggest that at some point, a List of people associated with 2021 storming of the US Capitol might be very appropriate. 174.254.194.76 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I detest "associated with" articles and categories. Who is "associated with" it? Donald Trump? Rupert Murdoch? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Does seem to be a WP:1E. Too soon to consider the Gold Medal, as it has not yet been awarded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm familiar with your work and respect your opinion, but disagree on this point. WP:1E states: "If an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Here, the event is, of course, one of the most significant in recent American history. And Goodman's role in the event is far more significant than that of Brenann (a mere eyewitness) in the JFK assassination. Goodman's heroism has been singled out and acclaimed by politicians across the political spectrum (how often does that happen?) and prevented the events from turning far more tragic than they would have been had the mob been able to enter the Senate chamber before it could be evacuated. Goodman is, IMHO, the very model of a figure who warrants a stand-alone article and a situation where WP:1E should not be applied. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you probably know that I am amenable to altering my !vote at AfD discussions in the face of compelling arguments. The article looks really sketchy. Its possible that more information may become available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do which is why I responded. The coverage has grown every day this week, and I've been updating the article quite a bit today, and will continue to do so tomorrow. H. Res. 305 is currently pending to award him the Congressional Gold Medal, though it's unclear when it will be put to a vote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I (nom) would change my !vote to keep per WP:ANYBIO if/when he receives the Congressional Gold Medal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Same; but for now “if/when” is the source of my TOOSOON feeling... Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Passes WP:GNG. --Cologinux (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No need to delete, IMO. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I take that back. Keep. Here's a BLP1e that rises above the single event, per ongoing coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, complete WP:BLP1E, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any decision prior to action being taken on the Congressional Gold Medal resolution might be premature. That said, award of the Medal, in and of itself, might not confer sufficient notability to cause the page to be kept, as not all previous Congressional Gold Medal recipients are the subject of individual pages. In terms of precedent, one might give consideration to the existence of individual pages for Officer Leslie Coffelt, of the then White House Police, who died in the line of duty during the Blair House assassination attempt on President Truman, and Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, both killed in the line of duty during the 1998 Capitol attack. Two of the three (Coffelt and Gibson) killed or wounded, respectively, the assassins - all three died. Goodman didn't die, but he effectively prevented what would have been a potentially significant loss of life by a pretty impressive display of thinking on his feet under circumstances in which he also put his personal safety at considerable risk. It seems to me to be a notable enough example of proactive thinking versus the reflexive responses of Coffelt and Gibson in their final moments of life. Is there less notoriety or credit or notability to be had for saving lives of all ilk then there is in taking lives? I believe I saw someone raise the question as to whether anyone will remember Officer Goodman or his actions a decade or two hence. Does anyone really think very many people remember Leslie Coffelt 70 years after his untimely death? If it weren't for a wikipedia page, pretty much no one would - and that would be a sad thing, because what he did is worth remembering, as is what Eugene Goodman did - and it's the more important because the CPD will not come out of this looking pretty - that his heroic actions stand as a testament to those CPD officers who did do their best in a bad situation. Having babbled to this point, I guess that I'm saying Keep Irish Melkite (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources and coverage are there and the Congressional Gold Medal seals it. I think the examples of Keith Palmer (police officer) and those given above by Melkite demonstrate the validity of the article. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No Swan So Fine, To be clear, he hasn't received the medal yet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Passes WP:GNG --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No Swan So Fine. Autarch (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merger/Redirect for now, per BLP1E. This is a low-profile individual who took part in an important event, and who can be covered in the main article. The subject's wishes should also be considered, i.e. this is from the coverage of him: Friends who have talked to Goodman since the riot, including two fellow officers and a former colleague, said he has been ambivalent about the limelight. Generally private and reserved, the D.C. native has started to worry about becoming a potential target of far-right extremist groups that have vowed to return to D.C. this weekend and for next week’s inauguration. Source: WaPo. If Goodman raises his profile, then a stand-alone article can be considered. In the present situation, it's better to cover him in the main article which has more eyes on it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodman has expressed concern about his safety from right-wing extremists, and for that reason we should absolutely not permit insertion of personal details (e.g., where he lives, family information, etc.) into the article, but his heroic actions have received worldwide coverage (and deservedly so), and it is entirely appropriate for us to have a stand-alone article memorializing his heroic and historic actions in safeguarding the Senate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli has now been closed as "Keep". It would be really bizarre for Wikipedia to keep the article about the clown in the furry horned hat whilst "deleting" the article about the day's most significant hero, a man whose remarkably alert and courageous actions saved the Senate from the mob. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Sources and precedent establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I am concerned for the role that personal esteem is taking in this discussion. If someone came along and said, “This is copaganda” (aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT), that would not be a deletion argument any more than admiration (ILIKEIT) is an inclusion argument. A Wikipedia page is not a reward for meritorious behavior, not least because some people, especially some otherwise low-profile people, won’t experience having one as a good thing. I really think this should be read on straight BLP policy without reference to heroism or OTHERSTUFF. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the storming. This is the standard response when we have someone so connected with just one incident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- John Pack Lambert, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but there is so much coverage already, and if the Congress gets this medal of honor through quickly it's really a done deal. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We base decisions on keeping articles on the reality of the present, not hypotheticals of the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, today is 20 January, so that future came pretty quickly, given that he is now acting Sergeant at Arms. So maybe "we" can change our minds. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to a Keep, but am wondering whether TOOSOON. Zawed (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has received a ton of national attention to easily pass GNG. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.23.90 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has received a ton of INTERnational attention to easily pass GNG. --87.170.206.245 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As more information is coming out, this officer is likely to be viewed historically as a pivotal figure in American history. He will probably soon receive medals and commendations. He is noteworthy because had he not acted, it's possible that America could have slid towards autocracy, or civil war, and historians will write about that. I also want to point out that editors should be careful about how this deletion would be viewed in the context of racial bias, given the focus on white officers and protestors in other articles. Quintin3265 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way past GNG. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia has no deadline for deletion of articles. The subject seems to pass WP:GNG regarding their involvement in a historic American event. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm watching the inaugeration and he's been given the role of escorting Harris in, as part of his commendation for this. I have to agree this is far beyond BLP1E due to the commendations he's gotten already and the likely chance he will get a Congressional Medal of Honor for this. --Masem (t) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (EC) He’s at the Inauguration with the Vice-President-elect as, per CBS News, acting Deputy House Sargent-at-Arms; this resolves my concern that we were turning the WP spotlight on a low-profile person who intended to stay that way. For next time I do hope we’ll wait for the dust to settle if harm to a living, low-profile person could be involved, but anyway here we are. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT says Dep Senate SAA, not House. In any case... Innisfree987 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable in and of himself, the article (which could be expanded to be honest) shows he is notable and since the attack on the Capitol he has been appointed to a position in the House of Representatives. So he is not known only for one thing (unless you expand that definition - plenty of congressmen/-women are notable only for being elected to Congress, but they all have pages). 82.36.115.88 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E is very very clear. It applies to LOW PROFILE individuals. When an individual gets some RS coverage, and that quickly or slowly changes them from an unknown individual to a HIGH PROFILE individual then BLP1E does not apply.

I am going to {{ping}} everyone who claimed BLP1E, and hasn't withdrawn it, and dare them to re-read BLP1E to verify they misread BLP1E.

I looked up Goodman, who I recognized from 2021-01-06 video, but didn't know by name, just a few minutes ago, while watching CNN's coverage of the inauguration. They named him as he was especially chosen to guard the VPOTUS, and he has already been given a promotion. CRYSTALBALL, but these are only the beginning of the honors he will receive.

Just like Chesley Sullenberger he is marked. He is someone to watch. I encourage all of you to start a google news alert on him.

That ping @AleatoryPonderings, Mangoe, K.e.coffman, and Mztourist: Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) _{missed @Hawkeye7:}[reply]

Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual says A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event.. This sure seems like an accurate description of Goodman. The single event is the Capitol storming. Again, I would be perfectly happy to vote keep if he is awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. But I don't think I've misread BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auld, California[edit]

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

It seems likely that Durham doesn't identify this as anything more than a 4th class post office and surrounding locale, and that's what the topos show, including labelling a nearby spot as "Auld Ranch". And this book says exactly that. This was never a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth per NGEO and GNG for places without legal recognition. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:31, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Hancher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not display Wikipedia:Notability, most articles are gossip articles that reference her TikTok presence. Acting career is trivial at best. Notoriety on TikTok seems to be reliant on amount of followers. Most notable is the nomination for 2017 Teen Choice Awards for "Choice Muser" (whatever that is). I'll point out that only one of the other nominations in that category display notability for their own pages. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that she has ever been in a notable production, let alone that she has ever had a significant role in one. This is the most slam dunk case for deletion with an actress article I have seen in a while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Citations are all either passing mentions, low-quality and/or self-published. Also removed some borderline BLP-violating stuff.... ~~If such things keep getting added back it probably needs semi-protection.~~ Nvm, seems to be a non-issue. Ovinus (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SK2242's sources: (1) doesn't seem to cover her as a person. All we know is she's an influencer and that she was criticized by many Instagram viewers for being an aquatic equestrian. (2) not in-depth coverage; it's three paragraphs, with the last paragraph being solely about her representatives. (3) Looks okay but not reliable. (4) Looks okay, although I can't assess the source's reliability. There's also (5) this, but I don't know Yahoo! news's reliability. I'll admit I may be extra critical of these sources due to my personal biases, but I think we should require high-quality RS because this is a BLP—about a TikTok star, no less, which probably generates lots of gossip inappropriate for our article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG:
1. Chen, Tanya (July 10, 2019). "A YouTuber Is Being Attacked For...Everything, After She Posted An Instagram Of Herself Riding A Horse In Water". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved January 9, 2021.
2. N'Duka, Amanda (September 28, 2017). "Paradigm Signs Social Media Influencer Kristen Hancher". Deadline. PMC. Retrieved January 9, 2021.
3. Tenbarge, Kat (March 12, 2020). "An influencer whose visa expired threatened to 'sneak into the US' or marry someone for a green card in a livestream, saying 'I'll risk getting banned for 10 years'". Insider. Retrieved January 9, 2021. (Reliability is situational)
4. Fuentes, Tamara (April 1, 2020). "Everything You Need to Know About Kristen Hancher". Seventeen. Hearst Magazine Media. Retrieved January 9, 2021. (Reliability undiscussed)
@CaffeinAddict: Please do a BEFORE search before nominating articles at AfD. SK2242 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh I did a BEFORE. I hardly consider any of these sources to be RS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SK2242 and WP:SIGCOV. While not newspaper of record-type of sources, they are good enough sources for popular culture. Bearian (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a WP:BEFORE and read most of those sources. None of them seem very reliable or verifiable and I think most would agree they aren't major sources of credible media. As such, the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:N and does not warrant a stand alone article. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Buzzfeed News and Deadline Hollywood are both listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Seventeen is a long running magazine that appears reliable although there have been no discussions on WP:RSN. Insider is listed as situational on RSP. SK2242 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SK2242 I agree that Buzzfeed News is more reliable due to its mildly more stringent editorial requirements. I had mistaken it with Buzzfeed. Are we really prepared to say that the Deadline source is in-depth and significant coverage? It's three sentences broken up into three paragraphs. The fact that Seventeen is long running and hasn't been discussed probably tells us all we need to know about that one. Insider being situational is putting it mildly. It's mostly unreliable fluff passed off as journalism. So our sources are: one reliable, one so relatively obscure that it hasn't ever been discussed before this article, one seemingly reliable that felt the subject was worthy of three sentences and one mostly unreliable except in certain situations but we really don't know when that is. Ask yourself, objectively, does that sound convincing? --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you personally view Insider as unreliable cool, but its viewed by the majority of editors as situational. The Deadline source is wholly about Hancher regardless of its length and that’s good enough. Ask on RSN how good Seventeen is and if they say it’s unreliable I’ll happily change my vote but this is convincing enough for notability. It’s 2 reliable, 1 presumably reliable (and if it is then it meets GNG there and then), and 1 situational. SK2242 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between being the primary subject of an article and receiving in-depth significant coverage by an article. Length does matter and so does substance. You still have one reliable with sigcov, one reliable with marginal (being nice) coverage, one you presume is reliable, which carries about as much weight as my opinion on the Insider, but is not listed and one situational yet you, nor I, nor anyone can define when it's a reliable situation and when it's not a reliable situation. Keep your vote what it is. I'm not here to tell you what your opinion should be. I'm just offering mine based on the facts I see in this case. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:32, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwood Avenue[edit]

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

This is a non-notable street. Article fails WP:GNG because it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable street.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:GEOROAD. Sources in the article do not contain SIGCOV from IS RS. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 03:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL city street. Not passing GNG, not even a numbered route to redirect to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 21 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 Hard Candy. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Shop (Madonna song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No independent coverage of this song from the album (Hard Candy) to warrant notability in its own right. Most of this article is derived from album reviews, and per NSONGS: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. HĐ (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hard Candy (the album's page). Fails WP:NSONGS, fails to meet the notability guidelines, most articles cited are album reviews. There are some poor sources used in the article, too (Women's Wear Daily, Chicago Music Magazine). AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per all the preceding comments. Bionic (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hard Candy per nom. Coverage mostly from all album reviews. --Ashley yoursmile! 09:08, 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 and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Daniel (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Keith Packer[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME. This persons is only notable for one event, the storming of the capitol, and his activity there consisted of wearing an objectionable tee-shirt. While some others like have other claims for wider events like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli‎‎ this person is closer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam C. Johnson who was WP:SNOW closed. Salix alba (talk): 15:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salix alba (talk): 15:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi. I appreciate your opinion. It is less about the overall rioters, more about the "fame" of this person, globally. Crossing the most red line. From Vox], "If the hoodie was meant to shock (and it surely was), it was a success. Twitter users expressed disgust..." Currently, google search turned up over 4 million results. (362k with quotation marks) Regards.Wil1andar (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. Presuming he gets convicted, he could be merged into a list of perps in the main article, but considering how long it took to identify him, his obscurity is manifest. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Dear Mangoe, do you propose to merge, like here [12]?Wil1andar (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. A redirect could be created if there is a conviction, but per BLP considerations we should let everyone else stigmatize him for now. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Not a policy, but this scumbag insurrectionist also doesn't deserve an article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partially merge - Doesn't deserve his own article, but can be mentioned briefly in the article 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as indicated above. The subject didn't receive notable coverage for anything before this event and will simply be a footnote added to the event once everything is concluded. In short, not notable for anything other than this event and probably never will be but if that changes we can revisit. Until then the subject doesn't pass WP:N. Note: The number of hits received on Twitter or subscribers on YouTube or views on a webpage is no indication of notability. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 15:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q. How about redirecting to Neo nazi related page?Wil1andar (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Capitol protest article. There is no need to have a separate article for every person who is publicly called out for their participation. ... discospinster _talk 19:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the article on the capitol storming. He is a classic example of violating one event notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt controversy. His notoriety is because of the sweatshirt, and it's clear that the page on the Capitol storming/riots/insurrection is bloated enough as it is. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article has less chance of surviving than this one. --Salix alba (talk): 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then Keep this. Merging this content into the main article will make it even more unwieldy than it is. He is a notable individual. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again do we really need an article about every person who was arrested from the Capitol storming? No we don't need to these guys any more publicity. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is at the center of three news stories: the Capitol storm, the state of Antisemitism, and sales policy of stores with political products. This is not routine media coverage of a typical protest participant, and it would be disruptive to merge the discussion here about the Auschwitz concentration camp into the main storming article when Auschwitz was not a main protest point. All the media coverage has led to additional media coverage including some biographical context of this person. There is a complementary article at Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt controversy also nominated for deletion. I think the content from thee sweatshirt article should get merged here, because this person is the center of a few discussions and will be the subject of future media including the outcome of his court case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is at the intersection of these issues, but those are three separate stories— or to the degree that they need to be discussed together, the insurrection story is the primary article, and moreover, he is by no means the only person sporting antisemitic merch at the Capitol invasion. Indeed, the story in context was that there were many people so attired there, in a variety of slogans. And once that story is told, there's nothing to be said about him personally except routine police blotter stuff. And all of this is disregarding all the various BLP angles on this. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:TENYEARTEST. This person played a minimal part in the storming and is only really "notable" for others because of the sweater he was wearing. This article suffers from significant recentism and WP:NOTNEWS problems. If there is any need to have any content about this person it can be dealt with in the mmain article about the event itself.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, per nom... clearly fails WP:BLP1E... there is almost as much information about him in the short paragraph about his arrest on the main (sub)article than on this page, it seems the clothing he was wearing is more notable than he... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt controversy with a redirect to this article. Editors should also consider whether they want to keep the sweatshirt-related content here or as part of another article. Sandstein 09:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIIW, I think it should redirect to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#January 13. There is a paragraph about him there. He doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main article at all, except for a link in the table at the end (which would be removed if this article becomes a redirect).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is exactly the kind of case that BLP1E exists for. As for merging the sweatshirt content into the main "Storming" article, I don't think it merits more than an aside e.g. "... protesters, some displaying anti-semitic slogans, ..." but no more. Not everything in the news belongs in wikipedia.-Ich (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the storming of the Capitol. No need for an article on the individual. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for wearing a shirt. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is going to be a tough one to keep unless he was more involved in the storming event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 21 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) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardev Pal Nayyar[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Bravery award is third tier so does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not that it matters, but the fawning tone of the writing is also inappropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 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 23:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basil William Spalding[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I could not find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, the article has no sources to help on this front. Subject was an enlisted soldier with no bravery award (so does not meet WP:SOLDIER). There is no clear reason why he would be notable over other soldiers. Dumelow (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can see that's notable. Intothat darkness 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Absolutely non-notable, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mztourist (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no serious assertion of notability, much less actual notability. No sources, and I can find none except genealogical sites. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No serious assertion of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per reasoning outlined above. Zawed (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and as an ordinary rebel. Plus, everybody knows in 2021, we don't publish original research. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 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 moved to Draft:NYDIG, pending improvements that satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion. I have move-locked the page and protected the mainspace target against protection, so that this will not be restored to mainspace without administrative review. BD2412 T 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYDIG[edit]

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

New article written by paid editor in draft space, then moved to main space by a user who is now blocked for (apparently) accepting new pages that shouldn't be accepted. The article cited a number of press releases, which I have removed. What remains is coverage in trade publications, which may or may not be relevant, and some decent coverage in Forbes. The company may be notable, but I felt it would be best to give it closer scrutiny, to decide whether to keep it, delete it, or move it back to draft space (which is my preference). ~Anachronist (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who created the article in the draft space, I would comment that I do not have any connection to the user who moved the article to the main space, and do not believe that fact alone should prompt deletion of the article. I would also take issue with the statement that the remaining citations are "trade publications" - as you note, one is Forbes; another is the Wall Street Journal, one of the most widely-distributed publications in the country. I appreciate you bringing closer scrutiny to the article and hope that the community will agree that this page should be kept. ~Kbbrewster13 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article is by a staff member and not a "Forbes contributor" and so it passes the usual test. The WSJ is lighter in terms of WP:SIGCOV in that it is mostly about Mass Mutual but the transaction itself is certainly significant and was the work product of this company so that also satisfied the test from my point of view. Coindesk is not even to be considered but Business Insider is usually acceptable and I also found an article in American Banker. I'm satisfied that, whatever irregularities it took on the way to mainspace, it is a notable company according to WP:NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the article being known to be blatant paid spam, I am unconvinced the remaining sources (after I removed the generally-unreliable crypto site) are in sufficient depth to pass the prongs of WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping David Gerard was going to comment to see if what he found backed up what I found prior to tagging. Since it is reassuring that I didn't miss something as I investigated the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, David Gerard, two of the sources are Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, both some of the largest and most widely distributed publications in the country. These articles clearly meet the criteria laid out in WP:NCORP, namely that they 1) contain significant coverage addressing the subject, 2) are completely independent of the article subject, 3) meet the standard for reliable, and 4) are a secondary source. The Forbes article is a full 1,544 words dedicated to NYDIG. The Wall Street Journal article is based upon a press release issued by the subject of this article and based upon an interview with the 2 principles of the subject of this article. It seems a strenuous argument that the article does not cover the subject significantly. If, therefore, there are 2 notable articles that meet the criteria, I would respectfully disagree with your logic. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Although there a decent number of RS on the subject, as pointed out here and from what I’ve seen in a quick google search, the subject doesn’t seem to have a sufficient level of significant coverage; all but one of the sources are focused on the same event related to a deal with Mass Mutual (see WP:SBST). On top of that, all the sources cover an event from just last month. Unless there are earlier RS’s covering unrelated events involving the company, it would be hard to say this is notable because it is lacking in significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Hidden Lemon, the two primary sources for this article cover different stories (Forbes 1 story, WSJ another) that are unrelated. There is no criteria I can see in WP:NCORP that requires the news to be a certain age or to be WP:SBST, though I would argue it is the latter. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cited both WP:SBST and WP:SUSTAINED as guidelines for what constitutes significant coverage... which is of course the primary requirement of WP:NCORP. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added two additional citations from mainstream press have been added - 1 from Bloomberg related to the MassMutual news, and 1 from American Banker related to NYDIG's creation of a bitcoin rewards debit card. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg and Business Insider articles are literally press release rehashes, and the Bloomberg one says so in the article text. The NYDIG content in the WSJ piece is repetition of claims directly from NYDIG. If you think that's "depth", I must note that competence is required - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:Notability (events) as a guideline. Perhaps this discussion should address whether the MassMutual deal coverage qualifies as a notable event or routine coverage. The other attributes (one of the largest institutional providers, second biggest fund complex, etc.) are all assertions of significance that avoids a speedy deletion, but actually keeping an article depends on whether the company meets WP:CORP criteria. As the nominator of this AFD, I thought it was borderline, and possibly NYDIG is notable. That's why I started this discussion.

Personally, my preference would be to move this back to draft space for further improvement, rather than deleting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company has one of only 24 regulatory Bitlicense licenses issued by the New York DFS,[13] which helps to establish notability. WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, Pensions and Investments and other top tier editorial coverage make it clear that the subject is past WP:TOOSOON, and that WP:CORP WP:GNG has been met. With institutional support, this is not some random ICO or blockchain effort, and we can expect more coverage soon enough.Nixie9 ✉ 19:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the Forbes "sites" reference is an acceptable reference, it is still spam. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 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) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander American University[edit]

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

A zero notability, possibly defunct, fly-by-night medical certification farm. Guyana is a pretty obscure country, but if their major newspaper Stabroek News only has 3 namedrops that amount to "owned by Indian nationals" then that is enough to put even the most localized notability into question. The school's social FB and Twitter accounts have not seen updates since 2017/2018 and the official pages are also broken links. And while not inherently a reason to delete, it was created by an obviously COI SPA. I am very forgiving about articles on subjects in developing countries, but this one amounts to advertising and nothing more. Estheim (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no clear evidence that this was every actually a widely accredited college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Zero newspaper articles on Google, and the three Google news Ghits are for a local news website of dubious reliability. Broader searches reveal lots of social media websites and a ranking not in the top 16,000 universities world-wide (the last made me LOL). Bearian (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:14, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP Frontbench Team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources nor could any be found in my WP:BEFORE. The only independent sources cover UKIP's actual leader/leadership, but not a frontbench team per se. UKIP-controlled outlets are not independent and as such cannot support notability of the page. More broadly, UKIP has never been present on the front bench of the House of Commons (indeed it has only ever been very briefly in parliament, in small numbers, and has never had an MP elected) and therefore cannot ever have had a "frontbench team". Given UKIP's collapse in support it is unlikely to ever have a presence in parliament again. FOARP (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proposer notes, this subject fails the GNG. Any material well-enough supported to be merged already exists elsewhere. Ralbegen (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even when UKIP polled the third highest number of votes in a general election in 2015 or were making significant progress in other elections only a few of its leadership attracted significant or sustained coverage. Since 2017 it has certainly not been a major party, and its front bench team would not be seen as any more notable than that of any other small party (or I suspect fully known even by most political active people in the UK). Even 2015 it is highly doubtful that it could be seen as a credible future government, so I do not think that this a subject notable enough to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 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 no consensus after two relists, leaning keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Badger (film)[edit]

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

Lot of c-list festival participation, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Would have redirected to the director, but his article was deleted last month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazem Mollaie). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep One review in the Austin Chronicle [[14]] Donaldd23 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is mention in Variety (one of the biggest film publications) and several others. It's notable enough. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One review plus mentions is insufficient for retention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability guideline is very specific. A subject must receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Mentions do not count and do not stack. One potential reliable source is not enough to meet the "multiple" requirement. It fails according to WP:N --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone here read or write Farsi? Because this is a Persian language film, I would expect there to be coverage in at least some Persian publications if it managed to get coverage in The Austin Chronicle. Wikipedia has a major problem with deletions of non-English films because no one knows how to find non-English sources for them.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this might help? -2pou (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Search term: گورکن فیلمFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 USCGC Paul Clark. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leaman Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Fireman First Class doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the USCGC Paul Clark is set out on that page Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ship's article per a number of similar articles posted here of late. Intothat darkness 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USCGC Paul Clark as the ship's namesake, not otherwise passing GNG/NPERSON/SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Baghirbeyov[edit]

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

The article is sourced to mentions in a genealogy of another family and notability is not inherited. Nothing in the article indicated a claim towards meeting WP:N. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW - minor nobility of a little country. If we're going to delete articles of actual reigning royalty and their cousins, then this must go, too. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 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 13:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sk Makbul Islam[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. KCVelaga (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Fails WP:BASIC RationalPuff (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publishing lots of stuff is not sufficient for notability; it needs to have a visible impact, not evident here. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not pass notability ctiteria. Also seems like promotional article Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how well Scopus indexes book chapter authors, but I couldn't find anything searching for "Sk", "Sheikh", or "Makbul" Islam. Nothing indicates he meets any other notability criteria either. This just reads like a CV. JoelleJay (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. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kortan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST as the awards are either not notable, unverifiable and/or vanity awards. Most of the museum collections also fail verification as they either do not have permanent collections, do not exist, or are libraries. I was only able to verify one non notable collection, and of the two collections that do not have their full catalog online, only one of them is notable, thus even if he were in both, he would fail NARTIST 4(d).

I was only able to verify one award, the European Prize for fine Arts by the European Union of Arts, a non notable award that doesn't appear on the List of European art awards. TOILE D'OR 2011, Fédération Nationale de la Culture Française seems to exist, but it is barely referenced anywhere. Couldn't verify that Kortan received it. [15] For the DALI award in the lede, I was unable to even verify the award. For the following awards, the only thing that comes up is the artists website, and this wiki page:

WORLD PRIZE OF SALVADOR DALÍ for Fine Arts
European Medal of Franz Kafka for Artistic Creation
European Prize F. Kupka
European Prize of Rudolf II
The three PALM awards are pay to pay vanity awards

Claims the artist is in these museums, but they either do not have permanent collections, do not exist, or are libraries.

Durer Museum no collection mentioned - only about durer and printmaking processes [16]
Monaco Modern Art Museum, Monaco doesn't exist
Levi Strauss museum is about the inventor of jeans https://www.bavaria.by/experiences/city-country-culture/museums-galleries/levi-strauss-museum-buttenheim

These two museums do not have their full collections available online, though only one of them is a notable museum that would satisfy NARIST 4(d): *Santiago Museum of Contemporary Art [17]

Museo d'arte Mendrisio [18]

I was able to verify inclusion in this non-notable collection: National Contemporary Art Museum Lord Eastleigh Foundation [19] Theredproject (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject, there is no such thing as the "Monaco Modern Art Museum", although there is the New National Museum of Monaco, which doesn't appear to have any works by Kortan in their collection. There is however the National Contemporary art Museum of the Lord Eastleigh Foundation in Seborga (http://www.mamac.com), which does appear to have his work. It's a bit questionable if the museum actually exists beyond its website. It's address in the US is 6130 Elton Avenue Las Vegas, where one can rent a "virtual office" for $99, and the address in Monaco is that of "The President Office", an apartment building on 4 Avenue des Castelans. Another "museum" is the "Bibliothèque Royale Albert I.", which is really the Royal Library of Belgium (KBR), and it does indeed appear to have a work by Kortan, a print of The Lady with a chameleon and a bottle of Soda. Kortan sells those from around €20 [20], albeit not as an edition. In short, the information in the article is either false or unverifiable. Delete. Vexations (talk) 15:29, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Piano Company[edit]

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

Not enough evidence of Notability, just some PR pieces. Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there's extremely little coverage (if it can be called coverage) that I can find in my search. Fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Java Hurricane 08:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP as already mentioned by both above me Spiderone 09:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dinger, Ed (2014). "Walter Piano Company, Inc.". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 149. Farmington Hills, Michigan: St. James Press. pp. 459–462. ISBN 978-1-55862-885-4.
  This entry is over 2,000 words long. From https://www.library.hbs.edu/Find/Databases/International-Directory-of-Company-Histories, the International Directory of Company Histories contains "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies."
  The entry's summary notes:
  Walter Piano Company, Inc., is an Elkhart, Indiana, manufacturer of handmade pianos, sold under the Charles R. Walter name through a network of dealers. The company offers grand pianos, six-feet-four-inches in length, in cherry, ebony, mahogany, and walnut veneers. Console pianos are offered in a variety of styles, including traditional, country classic, French provincial, Italian provincial, and the Riviera. Walter Piano also produces less-ornate studio pianos in cherry, ebony, mahogany, and oak veneers. These upright pianos are geared toward school and church use. The company is owned and managed by founder Charles R. Walter, his wife, and their children. Walter Piano is the only remaining American family-owned piano manufacturing company in North America.
  The entry notes:
  The lineage of the pianos produced by Walter Piano is far older than the company itself and is linked to one of the United States' most renowned band instrument makers, Charles Gerard Conn, the founder of the Conn Company, whose brand is currently controlled by Conn-Selmer, Inc. Conn was born in Phelps, New York, in 1844 and grew up in Elkhart, Indiana, where he learned to play the coronet as well as the violin.
  The entry notes in a sidebar:
  One of the finest handmade pianos of our day. I would dare to call them the Steinway of the 21st century. These pianos are built with the utmost attention to detail and maintain the supremacy of the American-made pianos. Although their vertical piano only stands 43.75 inches high the Walter piano uses the same length strings as a 5′8″ baby grand and has a better sound than most 52″ upright pianos. The quality of materials is top notch and with the everincreasing euro, the Charles R. Walter pianos are the best deal in a piano today!
  The entry has sections titled "Rich Heritage" (234 words), "Acquires Haddorff Piano: 1940" (153 words), "Charles Walter Joins Conn" (229 words), "Conn Organ Leaves Elkhart" (92 words), "Walter Company Formed" (198 words), "Company Perspectives" sidebar (96 words), "Walter Improves Piano Cases" (122 words), "Adoption of Walter Brand" (231 words), "Increasing Sales" (186 words), and "New Plant Opens: 1996" (303 words).
2. Richards, James Howard (2003) [1994]. Palmieri, Robert; Palmieri, Margaret W. (eds.). The Piano: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge. pp. 426–427. ISBN 0-415-93796-5. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The book notes:
  Walter Piano Company
  
  This American firm of piano makers was founded by Charles R. Walter (b. 1927), head of Piano Design and Developmental Engineering at the C.G.Conn Company during the 1960s, when Conn was doing significant research in musical ACOUSTICS. In 1969 Walter, an engineer, bought the Janssen piano name and piano manufacturing facilities (originally established in 1901 by Ben H. Janssen) from Conn, and in 1975 brought out the Charles R. Walter line of pianos. ... To this end, on his purchase of the Janssen company, production was sharply curtailed; the firm produces fewer than two thousand pianos a year.
  The company is unique in that it is family owned and operated, staffed by Walter himself, his wife, and various relatives. ...
  ... The modern Walter Piano Company obviously has no connection with the early Walter Company, a maker of UPRIGHTS controlled by the James Munn Company of New York. The Walter Piano Company is located in Elkhart, Indiana.
3. Good, Edwin M. (2014). "Walter Piano Co. [Charles R. Walter Piano Company]". In Libin, Laurence (ed.). The Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2258676. ISBN 978-0-19-974339-1. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The book notes:
  American firm of piano makers, founded by Charles R. Walter (b Watseka, IL, 8 May 1927). Walter was trained as an engineer and joined the C.G. Conn Company in 1964. He became head of the piano division in 1967. Conn at that time produced Janssen upright pianos, which it discontinued in 1969. ...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Walter Piano Company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:25, 4 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 12:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion about the sources presented later in this discussion would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per substantial coverage identified by User:Cunard, with significance including that it is the "only remaining American family-owned piano manufacturing company in North America." --Doncram (talk) 07:28, 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. If anyone wants to merge any of the content themselves, flick me a message on my talk page and I'll undelete and redirect so that the content can be pulled from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosport and Stokes Bay Golf Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - but no strong view. Possibly enough historical interest to deserve an article. Dates from 1885 which places it earlier than most in England. See: https://www.golfsmissinglinks.co.uk/index.php/england/south-west/hants-isle-of-wight-channel-islands/923-han-united-services-golf-club-haslar-gosport for some history up to 1939. Also club web site: https://www.gosportandstokesbaygolfclub.co.uk/page.aspx?pid=48019 Some suggestion that it has some early connection to the term "bogey", although others clubs make such claims too. Only 9 holes and nowadays of strictly local interest only. Mentioned in the Stokes Bay and Alverstoke articles. Nigej (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Haslar. Seemingly one of the oldest clubs in England. Also found a source to add some history and support the Colonel Bogey story. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Haslar Haslar has a strong naval / military history, and this Golf Club was originally created for military recreation. So merge makes a useful addition to the history of Haslar. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my standards. One listing and a story about a fictional colonel do not constitute significant coverage. This is a small course - only 9 holes - and there's been no special or charity events. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:38, 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 - the argument regarding SIGCOV, mentioned in the nomination and detailed by TimothyBlue, was not addressed in response. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shehab Khan[edit]

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

None of the awards are major. Some are just nominations. Most of the references are by him, not about him DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is a notable personality and wide media coverage suggests he meets the notability criteria and is worthy of notice. The sources are biographies and don't appear to be by him but by organizations which are considered reliable sources. Some of the awards are nominations but others seem to be successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.221.235 (talk) 11:44, 6 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 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The awards give notability as do some of the articles, and his media presence. He is a up-and-coming UK media presence who has uncovered some national issues. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might be WP:TOOSOON, but WP:CRYSTAL applies. I could find mentions but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source Eval Table

Source	Evaluation
School, Chigwell. "Biography, Chigwell…	404. Bio appears to be from school subject attended
Social media and European politics :…	Subject receives mention on pp. 158 about a tweet that was viewed as part of an "influential cluster", but it is not indepth coverage of the subject but an evaluation of the tweet.
"Journalist from The Independent wins…	This would be SIGCOV, but the subject is / was affliated with the newspaper.
Begum, Shelina (26 October 2017). "As…	One sentence mention of the subject winning an award, not SIGCOV
"Shehab Khan". The Independent. Retri…	Subject's name is at the top of a page with no content about the subject. No SIGCOV
"National Press Awards Shortlist – So…	Subject's name appears on a list of nominees, No SIGCOV
"Shehab Khan". ITV News. Retrieved 22…	Single paragraph writers bio on a site the subject writes for. No SIGCOV
"Shehab Khan". IMDb. Retrieved 23 Apr…	Single paragraph bio on IMDB written by a "SK". Not SIGCOV
Cooper, Charlie (18 February 2020). "…	Name appers in link text pointing to an article written by the subject. No SIGCOV
. Newsroom, The (7 July 2020). "Awards…	Subject mentioned in one sentence with another winner. No SIGCOV
. Dickson, Annabelle (21 February 2020…	Subject is mentioned as an interviewer. No SIGCOV

BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. Hopefully this is TOOSOON, but at the present this article lacks SIGCOV. If anyone finds SIGCOV, please ping me and I'll be glad to switch to keep. // Timothy :: t | c | a 09:31, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Springs, California[edit]

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

This one is a bit of a puzzle in the topos, because the oldest ones place "Box Springs" at a point on the railroad which is labelled "Box Springs (siding)" in later maps; those maps show "Box Springs" at the point by the interchange entered in GNIS. But this article from a local newspaper says that Box Springs as a town was planned but never happened, which is consistent with what the maps show. So, not a notable settlement, or even a settlement at all. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cool little place outside LA but not notable enough for inclusion. Does have an elementary school. The Family Services Association does have a headquarters there but it's not called Box Springs, at least not now. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GEOLAND or at the very least, redirect to Box Springs Mountain, which is named after Box Springs. As a hot springs (and cold springs) enthusiast, this AfD peaked my interest! A quick BEFORE found the citations below that could be added to the article. It does seem like a dying but definitely not dead community…according to the Moreno Valley City Manager’s office, part of the Moreno Valley gets it’s water supply from the Box Springs Mutual Water Company, fed by Box Springs, the Water Co was set up in the 1920s and currently distributes water to 430 acres with 600 hook-ups/connections. It sure seems to be a populated place, since there’s several real estate listings (not that that is considered appropriate for WP sourcing!), and it does have an elementary school: [21] I don’t have time to go thru all my California history and hot/cold springs books today, but I’m relatively certain that if I searched for Moreno Valley history or Inland Empire history, or Riverside County history I’d find more. Here’s an article on Box Springs: [22] Also brief mentions: The Environmental Legacy of the UC Natural Reserve System by FIelder, Rumsey, and Wong. 2013 University of California Press - Pages 158-160 are the short chapter on the Box Springs Reserve, named after Box Springs.[23] Also a brief mention in: Chapt. 18 of Southeastern Deserts Bioregion, by Brooks, Minnich and Mattchett. In the book: Fire in California’s Ecosystem. [24] and in The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: Looking Forward After Ten Years, by Ouellette and Landry in the journal Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 29, No. 3, SPECIES (Winter 2015), pp. 40-43 (4 pages) [25] This book from the 30s, "California in the 1930s", mentions in Chapt. 6 it has (or had?) a gasoline filling station and a garage. University of California Press. [26] I haven't done a newspaper search, but the above is enough to convince me that there IS a there, there, and the article should be kept per GEOLAND. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've improved the article - it now has eleven citations. There's more out there in archaeological records. Netherzone (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article's been improved significantly since it was nominated. (In other words, per WP:HEY, a shortcut I tend to forget the meaning of within minutes of clicking on it.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It does have credible sourcing, and there are enough other mentions of the name attached to a school, mountain, etc. There's enough sourced background information there to qualify this as a keep. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 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) 02:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Words (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, film website boasts many awards and nominations but they all come from non-notable film festivals and award mills, does not have significant coverage (if you Google search the title and the director's name in quotes, there are only three hits...), per WP:NF this should not have a stand alone article BOVINEBOY2008 10:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did find 4 wins and 3 nominations, but as per bellow the festivals where non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:32, 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 delete. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF, does not have significant coverage by independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Anand[edit]

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

Non-notable either as a sportsperson or as a businessman. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 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 redirect to Republic Day#31 May in South Africa (1961–1994). Daniel (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Republiekdag[edit]

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

Article already exists as Republic Day and already contains all the information in this new article so no need to merge JW 1961 Talk 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republic Day#31 May in South Africa (1961–1994). Or delete, if we update the (few) links to point there. - htonl (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without prejudice - the creator left this comment on their own talk page re this discussion which is pasted here as a courtesy

"@Joseywales1961: @Joseywales1961: Hi. You are right, it is far from complete. The reason I created it was to accent the importance the Afrikaner Nationalists placed on their Republic's Founding Day. Feel free to delete if you think it is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmars3 (talk • contribs)" JW 1961 Talk 17:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - this would be a valid RD from an alternate common name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Joseywales1961, If you can find sources, a paragraph about the significance of this might fit into Afrikaner nationalism. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:56, 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 redirect to Bangerz. If anyone feels there is any relevant content in the articles that can be merged (I'm not exactly hopeful of that), you are welcome to rescue the content from behind the redirects. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GetItRight[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The articles fail WP:NSONGS. Most of the content of these articles are derived from album reviews/discussions. Live performances alone do not constitute notability unless the performances receive commentary/coverage on their own. Chart positions per-se also do not warrant notability. The one and only requirement for songs articles is third-party coverage, which these articles all lack (Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.
If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.) The only songs with (sort of) third-party coverage are "SMS (Bangerz)" and "Drive", but discussions regarding the former are about failed collaborations with Gwen Stefani and Nicki Minaj and not the song itself, and the latter are about speculations on her ex-boyfriend, which violates WP:SPECULATION. HĐ (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Similar AFDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maybe You're Right and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do My Thang. HĐ (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz per nom. The chart positions on Gaon and Pop Digital Songs aren't that notable. Coverage not outside album reviews. Ashley yoursmile! 15:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Bangerz, since these songs have only received coverage as part of album reviews they fail WP:NSONGS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Every song by every famous person doesn't warrant a Wiki entry, no? I don't see any reason this song needs a call-out anywhere, but if it does, it would be better on the Miley Cyrus page or the Bangerz page as Ashleyyoursmile suggests. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bangerz per nom. I do not see the point for every Miley Cyrus song to have its own article if they have no major third-party coverage outside album reviews, which fails WP:NSONGS. Neither is chart performance particularly notable enough. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:52, 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 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesmin Ben Hammouda[edit]

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

I don't believe that she meets the requirements of WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC or any other relevant criteria.

She has an article in Big Time Daily - I've never come across this website before. Is it a reliable source? Seems very, very promotional. It's blacklisted on Wikipedia so make of that what you will.
[27] - she isn't even mentioned here
[28] - it says at the bottom (Syndicated press content is neither written, edited or endorsed by ED Times) so clearly a promo piece
[29] - this is identical to the above ref
[30] - Glamour is not a major magazine as far as I can tell

The rest of the references are just self-published or unreliable stuff such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, IMDb and I'm not even going to waste time doing an in-depth analysis of those. Spiderone 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I did a WP:BEFORE search and found no useful coverage. Spiderone 11:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 7 of the 10 sources are marked as "unreliable" according to WP:RSP. The whole section on the subjects "personal life" is unreferenced, going against WP:MINREF. The article appears to read more as a resume as well. Nothing to establish notability for the subject. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO, WP:SNOW, and WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 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) 02:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Falovitch[edit]

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

I do believe he does not met notability criterias. No reliable, independent sources. Regards Kemalcan (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I have explained how Jason Falovitch is a "person of interest." He is an accomplished business man that works with Mark Cuban, Michael Bisping, Roy Hibbert, and Evander Holyfield. This tag for speedy deletion is erroneous, as I have presented why Falovitch is indeed notable in the business world. He owns multiple companies with other well-known people and he runs social media accounts with millions of followers. This tag was put on before anyone even read the page, which is completely unfair. I demand that this page not be deleted. A. Julian 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC) confirmed to be sockpuppeteer of the editor below Spiderone 20:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted. The page has a sufficient amount of citations and is well-written. After reading this article, it is quite apparent that Falovitch is certainly notable and has dealt with some very important people. It would be beyond foolish to remove this page; it needs to be kept. IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC) striking sock vote Spiderone 20:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:BASIC; the only source providing him more than a passing mention is this, which menafn.com says that they take no responsibility for MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. The article itself is written very, very promotionally. Spiderone 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, independent sources. Promotional. --Kemalcan (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He has no personal Twitter handle anymore. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 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. Clearly work has gone into this, will restore to draft space if an editor thinks they can work towards gng. Fenix down (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Roach (footballer)[edit]

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

Clearly a lot of effort has gone into this article on a footballer from before the First World War, but unfortunately he does not meet WP notability requirements. He played only regional amateur football rather than professionally, so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, and I can find no evidence of his passing WP:GNG. The only references currently in the article are a piece from a blog maintained by the article creator and a (largely identical) piece on the official website of the club he played for. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted that there is a potential conflict of interest with a major contributor to the article. With that in mind I can remove edits made by the original contributor and rebuild the page as an independent contributor with knowledge of the topic.

Regarding the validity issue, Southall FC were one of the leading amateur football clubs of the time so Charles and Southall FC were playing at a very high standard of football. At the time, there were a very small number of professional clubs and Southall FC were one of the leading amateur clubs. Charles is the equivalent of a semi-professional player of the modern era so therefore in my opinion this 'qualifies' him for inclusion on that basis. If this article is deleted it would therefore follow that many other Wikipedia articles on players of similar stature (including many who are currently playing) would need to be deleted. An amateur player playing at this level in the early 1900s is the equivalent of semi-professional players in the 2000s.

I also believe that as an online encyclopaedia, it is of benefit to the Wikipedia audience to be able to access informative and historical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMSMiddx (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC) JMSMiddx (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JMSMiddx: if a modern player has only played at a semi-professional level, then they wouldn't meet the notability guidelines either, and many such players have been deleted...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; worth noting that the only independent & reliable source is a newspaper obituary which would not make someone notable on its own (otherwise almost everyone would qualify for an article on Wikipedia after they pass away) Spiderone 10:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame but I understood re criteria etc. When will the page be deleted? If that is the final decision. He was a semi pro for Southall FC when there were very few pro clubs in England and Southall were one of the top amateur clubs in the country so would rank very highly in modern football, he still holds the record for most goals in a season with 57 goals in one season for Southall and also played for Reading, Fulham and Tottenham. But I understand if that is the decision. I also understand re potential conflict of interest and a third party took over editing of the page. N.B. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and still learning.Mark Roach Southall FC (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Roach Southall FC: an AfD discussion usually runs for about a week, unless it becomes clear earlier that there is an overwhelming consensus one way or the other. And please don't be discouraged by this process, sometimes it takes a while to become familiar with all the guidelines on WP and what is/isn't suitable for an article. I know I created articles in my early days which were deleted and I am still here 15 years later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and I do understand the reasons why if it is deleted. I only registered with Wikipedia to update the Southall FC page and for no other reason as it was lacking in information with a lot of detail missing and put in a huge amount of time and effort to improve it as a resource. I have no official connection with Southall FC, I just decided to update the page and correct the innacuracies on it. Mark Roach Southall FC (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete amateur footballer, fails WP:GNG. We are not a memorial site for former players. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I had a look in the archive material I have on Tottenham, and there is no mention of this player. I strongly suggest to the closer to move this to User:User:Mark Roach Southall FC/Charles Roach so he can work on it in a draft space. Also cite #2 is incorrectly cited. That should be written as the newspaper cite for what it is. From what I gather it can be probable that this article can in fact pass GNG guidelines if the work was put in to contact the archives for Fulham, Reading and Middlesex. There maybe enough published sources across different library archives to properly access this. Good luck. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy thanks. There is a newspaper archive that includes him in a Tottenham reserve game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Roach Southall FC (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Roach Southall FC: What newspaper, date? source? Govvy (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose userfying for someone with a clear COI. If someone without a COI finds proper sources and wants to write a decent article about them, then they aren't going to use this article as a basis for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this means ('oppose userfying' etc) but I understand the general issues. I probably don't really have the time, energy or inclination that is required to give this a chance of not being deleted, so on the basis of the majority of what I have read so far about the key issues in question, I will leave it to whoever is going to make the final decision and leave it there, then if it stays and I can improve sources etc (or someone else wants to) then I will.Mark Roach Southall FC (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is correctly built with credible sources then the COI really doesn't have an issue now! Govvy (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Roach Southall FC: - just to clarify, in order to pass the general notability guideline, you would need to find independent sources which are specifically about the player to a reasonable degree of depth. If the player set a notable record, then maybe a newspaper wrote an article about that? On the other hand, a match report which happens to mention that he was in the line-up unfortunately won't help to demonstrate notability (particularly if the game in question was a reserve game). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC) * Thank you. Mark Roach Southall FC (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources as per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:39, 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 "F" and re-redirect "f". Daniel (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King of Fruits[edit]

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

Pointless disambiguation: none of the three fruits listed are actually called 'king of fruits'; of them, only durian is described as such in its article, hence per WP:DABRELATED the other two shouldn't even be on this list, hence there's no need to disambiguate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The durian is commonly known as "the king of fruits". The others aren't. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect King of fruits to Durian (and delete the Fruits version). Mangos are less frequently given the title, e.g. by The New York Times (subscription required), so maybe a redirect hatnote in Durian? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sources. Onursides (talk) 19:16, 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 speedy redirect to Alec Empire. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death Breathing[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2007. This album does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited by 1,000,000,000 on Wikipedia. Vit; talk 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alec Empire as one of his many side projects. The album received no notice and is only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alec Empire: This is where the edit 1,000,000,000 exists on Wikipedia. Why delete this? If this is were to be deleted, then the edit is going to be lost in Wikipedia's history. I suggest this article to be kept or redirected into Alec Empire (per Doomsdayer520) rather than getting this deleted. Mario Jump 83! 01:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the edit won't be lost per se, but it'll only be visible to administrators. Ionmars10 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I could make the two billionth edit about a song I just made up in my head. That doesn't make my song notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alec Empire, which is a suitable target (per WP:ATD-R) — hike395 (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alec Empire. Amazing, we have a 1,000,000,000 edit for Wikipedia's 20th anniversary and a new year. Chompy Ace 07:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Album titles like this tend to clutter up our name space, generating false positives for searches for valid encyclopedic topics like death rattle and Cheyne–Stokes respiration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alec Empire, partially in order to preserve the visibility of edit #1000000000. Ionmars10 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alec Empire. (I added some citations to it, but I'm not sure that it's WP:CIRC, for the article created 14 years ago.) - Yitbe ^A-21 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alec Empire. I found at least cursory reviews in Vox and Melody Maker as per this search, nothing else. I don't see how it could be a 'false positive search' -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readers might be searching using keywords such as death and breathing on account of the pandemic. They are unlikely to be looking for an obscure rap album as the readership for this article has been tiny throughout most of its history. There's a spike now on account of the 1B edit. If the page is kept for the latter reason, it should redirect to Steven Pruitt, who made the edit. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Steven Pruitt would be nonsensical here. Jordanhill railway station doesn't mention that it's the millionth Wikipedia article, and that got more coverage than this is likely to get. If this is really an issue, tag it with {{R unprintworthy}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete history in light of special circumstances. Best option: Merge with either Alec Empire or Alec Empire discography. Redirect keeping history but not mandating a merge is also acceptable. If result of this AFD would otherwise result in the history being deleted move it to Wikipedia: space, replace content with something explaining that edit 1,000,000,000 is in the edit history, possibly rename the page to "WP:Billionth edit" or something like that, and revision-delete all edits besides that one and edit 1,000,000,000 under "WP:RD5 (AFD)". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 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 redirect to USS John C. Butler#History. Sandstein 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Clarence Butler[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Ensign posthumously awarded one Navy Cross is not notable. Unclear what role he personally played in the Battle of Midway, just being a member of VB-3 which sunk the Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū doesn't establish notability and he disappeared after the attack. His role as namesake of the USS John C. Butler is covered on that page Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as (as stated) not sufficiently notable for an independent article, to USS John C. Butler. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger. Intothat darkness 15:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a viable option. Does not warrant a stand alone article as per the notability guideline. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:56, 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 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welton Ralph Abell[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross and retired a Colonel. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked through as much information as I could to see if there was anything other than service record that would confer notability but found none. As such, the subject does not pass the basic notability requirement for retention of the article (WP:N). --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 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. Sandstein 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Eugene Beagle[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A Sergeant posthumously awarded one Distinguished Service Cross (United States) is not notable Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conducted a WP:BEFORE in search of anything that would pass the notability requirements. Found none. Does not pass per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria. We need to start actually enforcing them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We do. It's why we're here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Political Consultants[edit]

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

Non-notable association, any sources I found were trivial and did not meet WP:ORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:19, 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 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Alberta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No demonstrated notability. Party was active for just over a year, during which it never ran any candidates or was formally registered. While it appears to have received some recognition in the media, there was no significant coverage— the sole source in the article has only a passing mention of the party, nothing akin to an in-depth profile or serious analysis. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:01, 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 redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Pollock[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross and retired a Colonel. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awarded the Navy Cross and retired a Colonel. The only significant problem I could see is that it lacked a picture but I fixed that. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:SOLDIER, which is the general consensus of what should be notable. Note that a single Navy Cross does not meet the criteria, and colonel is not a flag rank. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducted a WP:BEFORE search and the subject does not receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. The basic notability measurement is not met. An award can not rise to the level to overcome that without being so significant that the subject would receive the coverage needed. Does not pass per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II With almost 7,000 recipients, this award is not automatic notability and there is not further significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete colonels are not notable by rank, and navy cross is not enough for notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Mentioned there and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotoworld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article's appeal is extremely limited and it contains too little information to be of use, and it appears it isn't being kept up to date by any interested party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 48Pills (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger (Icon Spielberg Album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage anywhere online. Little more than a track listing which, if the artist didn't currently have an article, would be A9 speedy-deletable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon Spielberg. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly non-notable; or just wait for the AfD on the artist's article to complete, then A9 speedy this. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even remotely close to meeting WP:NALBUM Spiderone 10:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via whatever procedure is valid before or after the singer's article is deleted. Not even close to notable per WP:NALBUM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUM; far from enough material for a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NALBUMS, not notable. Ashley yoursmile! 15:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Spielberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article provide no significant independent coverage and the only ones I can see online are social media, music download sites and similar. A draftspace version of the page was rejected three times at AfC. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Paid for article on a non notable Nigerian musician who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced and nothing to suggest notability, fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately, yet another promotional article on a completely non-notable singer Spiderone 10:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to the dude as he gets started, but he is only visible in the usual retail/streaming sites, plus the typical Nigerian "news" sites that are hideously unreliable pushers of reprinted press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear cut GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Ashley yoursmile! 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 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.