Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 20	January 22 >

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 speedy keep. Closing per WP:SNOW and WP:EARLY. Nominating rationale is not based on any recognizable standard under the deletion process guidelines and there are no supporting !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD[edit]

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

Article is about a proposed depot, that was cancelled before construction commenced. The rolling stock it was intended to be the home depot for is being maintained an existing depot that have been expanded to accommodate.[1][2] Yumosumo (talk) 23:57, 21 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Nom. has been disruptively interferring with previous AFD log with no edit summary and I am not wasting any more time here: [3] so I am not looking any further or wasting any further time. It was good on the previous AfD and that is sufficient.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability, not existence, is our inclusion criteria, and this meets those requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [4] was an attempt to fix after I actioned stage 3 of the AfD process, but it came up with the 2019 debate. Anyway has now been resolved. Despite accusations from one editor that I am seeking to be disruptive, have a conflict of interest and a fixation with the article. None of this is true. I set the article up in 2017, made a further 6 edits in 2019 and then nominated it for AfD in 2021, so 3 sessions in over 3 years, hardly a fixation. I took no part in the 2019 AfD. Appears that said editor is a bit worried that maybe there is a vaild case for deletion, hence their wish to shut the debate down. Yumosumo (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notabillity is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but later Merge into the article on the new depot. The article is obviously has WP:CRYSTAL issues, as proved by the fact that it was never built. Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:NTEMP --Kemalcan (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and Kemalcan. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:25, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime distributed by Bandai Visual[edit]

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

This list fails WP:LISTN, since there are no sources that talk about these works as a group (in fact, the article doesn't have any sources at all). That's likely because Bandai Visual has not actually created any of these series listed, they only acted as a sponsor/production committee during their original run as well as maybe releasing them for DVD at some point. They are not a production studio like Sunrise or Gainax, they're a distribution company, so I fail to see how this needs its own list. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per the reasoning above. I also think that removing catalog lists from most distributor page should be a change adapted across the board with only a few exceptions. Link20XX (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST and WP:TNT. A list like this is worse than useless. There's no rhyme nor reason, even if it is chronological. It is a pure mess. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 18:29, 27 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) 01:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Andreani[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. There was more information in the article that was removed by an account who self-identified as Andreani who didn't want detailed content in an article about himself. I would PROD this but it's been PROD'd already. I realize that this is a stub but I don't think it will be expanded and right now just has links to Facebook & IMDb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable indy filmmaker, his work didn´t draw the attention of any critic or film reviewer. Andreani directed a "cinema within the cinema" dramatic comedy, a one-day shooting absurdist comedy, Peter Bártok Jr, another absurdist comedy, and a couple of short films. His bio fails WP:FILMMAKER---Darius (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook and IMDb are two non-reliable sources. Per DagosNavy's argument there are no good sources out there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, An incomplete article with no reliable source, Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. I can't verify anything about this person. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notable sources Jenyire2 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:/@Johnpacklambert: It's me, or this article is listed as "Deleted" in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Argentina/archive while the discussion is still technically open?? Can an admin take care and close the discussion, please?.---Darius (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Bot error, fixed now.---Darius (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, lack of reliable, independent sources. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:15, 28 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 with history preserved at Efforts to impeach President Biden. This has been a well-trafficked and contentious discussion. There is near-unanimous agreement to either merge or delete, numerically favoring deletion, especially as the discussion has gone on. The primary arguments to merge are countered by the point that all usable content has already been integrated into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, so the remaining question is whether the title should be preserved as a redirect or deleted outright. Arguments in favor of a redirect include that redirects are cheap and that it may be useful. Arguments against focus on the title being factually incorrect or misleading (i.e., that no "impeachment inquiry" actually exists, and that such terminology is not used by reliable sources). I evaluate this discussion as having a consensus to delete. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 00:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended closure: this was originally deleted outright, but upon further review, the page history was restored to satisfy the attribution requirement following the merge. (I had originally thought the articles developed independently, but this was clearly not the case.) Because there was a clear consensus to not keep a redirect under the original title, the history was moved to Efforts to impeach President Biden using the process described under Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Rename to another title and redirect. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 07:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden[edit]

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

_{Delete or Merge}: Many Representatives throughout American history have introduced articles of impeachment, but this does not mean that they reach the level of a critical inquiry. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who proposed these articles, is a noted conspiracy theorist and introduced the articles just thirty hours after Joe Biden was inaugurated. It will not gather traction. This article should either be merged with hers, with Presidency of Joe Biden, or fully deleted. PickleG13 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PickleG13, I overstruck your actual choices, above. I am sure you didn't mean them to be misleading, but you only get one non-vote. As nominator your nomination is your not-vote. Leaving an explicit opinion, in the body of the discussion, will confuse people trying to count the number of opinions for each choice. I suspect you meant to leave your opinion, when you opened the AFD, but didn't know how, and that is why you left an explicit not-vote directly following opening the AFD with no justification.] Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait For a few reasons. [1] as the article was created 10 minutes before an AFD with a total of 3 edits to the page. [2] the WikiProject of Current events was about to add a friendly notice to not consider the article for deletion for about 2 hours while RS create stories on it. I promise you that within 3 hours, there will be at least 12 RS that create stories on this. At the moment, there is only two RS with stories since it is so new. [3] Even if this doesn't go anywhere, it is still impeachment articles against a sitting US President. I would be ok for a rename if the articles go no where (Like expected). But honestly, this AFD was too quick. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Vote to Merge since there is no need for two articles over the exact same material. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip:Another wiki and twitter is not reliable sources. Anyone can put made up stuff on twitter. Person A for example can tweet something like, "This election was rigged by mail in voter fraud. " That can't be used to cite that there was election fraud. Only one source that was reliable I kept, the others I removed and replaced with the citation needed tag. Sorry for any inconvenience. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: The other wiki I understand, but per Donald Trump on social media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." In this case, the Representative is a verified account and proven that is her official account. Her twitter is a reliable source in this case and I am adding it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unnecessary and likely to provoke controversy; it should be removed. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be honest, Wikipedia crossed the "provoke controversy" line a long time ago. Articles like Trump–Raffensperger phone call & Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (Aka no "Democratic reactions... article) might also be considered unnecessary. I know what you mean, but there is plenty of controversial articles on Wikipedia, so removing this would be a reason to challenge ones that were nominated as "keep". Elijahandskip (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Dockery there is an essay, WP:Arguments to avoid, that is so widely read, widely cited, many wikipedia contributors assume it is a policy. If you have never read it I invite you to read it now.

Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:EASYTARGET.

So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Elijahandskip. Plus there are less than 500 people who can file an article of impeachment in a nation of 320 million people, and she is one of them. Censoring to avoid controversy is not a legitimate reason. Albertaont (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ Thousands of bills, resolutions, etc. are introduced in Congress each year, and many of them are introduced with the knowledge that they have virtually no chance of passing. However, the likelihood that a bill will pass isn't what determines whether a topic is notable. There are now numerous reliable sources which are plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. That being said, I think we should wait a while on this because it remains to be seen whether there will be continued coverage of this event (WP:PERSISTENCE). If not, then another AFD could be discussed. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that more time has passed and discussion has proceeded significantly, I am changing my vote to ~~Move~~ Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, because that seems like a more appropriate place to put the information. I think the effort is definitely notable per GNG, even if it is unlikely to go anywhere (efforts is the key word in "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden"). ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate for a merge, not a move. The above has been edited to reflect that. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. We have Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, we have Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, so we can have Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. This article may need to be cut down somewhat to avoid undue emphasis, but generally we have considered efforts to impeach U.S. presidents as notable. (At one point, the George W. Bush impeachment article, then titled Movement to impeach George W. Bush, was longer than Impeachment of Bill Clinton and the entire biography of Andrew Johnson combined.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Efforts to impeach Joe Biden has been created since this AfD began, I would be satisfied with a redirect or merge to that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden per Metropolitan90. 71.190.95.161 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic currently fails to meet notability requirements, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In addition, the introduction of articles is not alone enough to raise to the level of "inquiry". In fact, the bill itself has not even been introduced yet. And when it is, it will be at the same level of notability as any other bill, unless and until it gets out of committee or gets significant media attention. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GPHemsley, what establishes whether a topic meets "notability requirements" is significant coverage in reliable sources, and this topic already meets that standard. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Geo Swan: Does it, though? For Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, an inquiry does not exist, so how could it have significant coverage in reliable sources? Also, where are such citations? They're certainly not in the article. For Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, I'm not convinced there is enough material at this time to warrant its own article; that may change in the future, but for now I think it's too soon. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge : The article relies on one source for something that related to BLP. The BLP it relates to is also about a politician. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source, no inquiry has been (or, very very likely, will be) started. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DemonDays64, contributors weighing in at an AFD are supposed to base their opinion on the notability of the article's underying topic, not on the current state of the article. This is deletion policy 101. There are clearly plenty of good RS. I recommend that if you ever weigh in at an AFD in future you conduct your own web search first, so you have an informed opinion on whether sources not cited in the current article are out there. Please be more careful in future. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Merge into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, per Metropolitan90 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, per Metropolitan90. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, exactly ten seconds before I added this !vote, a draft article of this name by BD2412 was moved to mainspace. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I had to think it over. BD2412 T 02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. I have promoted that draft to mainspace. BD2412 T 02:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden Quidster4040 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete filings like this happen to most US presidents, and most are not filed by known conspiracy peddlers. This can be revisited later if it gets into committee. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both had articles of impeachment brought against them on the House floor that never went anywhere. Since right now this appears to be little more than a political exercise carried out by a fringe extremist, I think we should make sure to not give it any undue weight. Thus, I also oppose the idea of creating an "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" article until the idea of impeaching Biden gains a respectable amount of support among the public at large like the idea of impeaching Bush did. Reattacollector (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note that there does not exist an article named Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan. I think the movement of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden out of draft by BD2412 was premature; the majority of the article is simply a description of recent events. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should definitely be an article on Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan, as there certainly were efforts. The fact that an article about a past period has not yet been made is of no relevance to documenting the present. BD2412 T 07:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is not whether there were efforts; the question is whether the efforts were notable. But point taken. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No article on Reagan? That sounds like a mistake, to me. I just started a stub entitled Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan. @Reattacollector, GPHemsley, and BD2412: Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412, Geo Swan, and Reattacollector: Not to take this discussion too far off course, but having looked into the "efforts" to impeach Reagan, it's not clear to me that they warrant their own article either: There were a total of 2 resolutions, in 2 different Congresses, with only 9 members of Congress between them, and neither went anywhere after being introduced. That sounds at most worthy of a mention on Presidency of Ronald Reagan. And if that's the case, then I don't think this single resolution with a single sponsor for the impeachment of Biden warrants its own article either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as this effort is dead on arrival. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. No inquiry will likely be started at all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revised my above !vote. The lead of the article now literally states that the subject of the article does not exist. There is no inquiry, so there is no reason to have a page about an inquiry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden It's political theater and has received to major coverage.Eccekevin (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's look at some other articles of impeachment that were filed and went nowhere, similar to MTG's stunt. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine closed "delete", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine closed "draftify", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine closed "delete", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer closed "delete". I think we have a consensus on what to do with this sort of political theater. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note : There seems to be large amount of support over at the discussion of merging the contents of Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. No need for two articles on this topic. This is not an "inquiry"; it is a resolution by a conspiracy theorist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: The only thing that happenned is that one conspiracy-prone rep. filed a paper. It's not reasonable to add an article whenever that happens before seeing if the act has any minimal weight. If and when this will be given serious consideration there may be place for such an article. For any it looks like no more than a press release by the rep. herself. It has zero significance beyond that. This article should either be merged with Marjorie Taylor Greene or fully deleted. --Roypeled (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. There is no serious inquiry against POTUS 46. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. So far, the only effort (note: singular), is a meritless accusation by a representative and QAnon conspiracy theorist, and this is going nowhere. Proposed bills that go nowhere usually don't merit articles, and I don't think this is any different. I strongly doubt that giving this nonsense due weight merits even one article. It most certainly doesn't merit two articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. At this moment, the two articles discuss the same thing, and there isn't anything right now to suggest that these articles of impeachment are going to amount to anything more notable than, for example, the early attempts to impeach Donald Trump during his first couple of years. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a paragraph about this stunt in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, which is more than it deserves. Nothing to merge here. There is no, nor will there ever be, an "Impeachment inquiry" based on this nonsense as there precisely zero chance that there will be even a single committee hearing not to mention a floor vote based of Greene's filing. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there's no justification for creating controversial BLP-related articles on the basis that something may come to pass and there may be future sourcing about it. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as efforts to impeach. Jr8825 • Talk 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Efforts to Impeach Joe Biden, when most of the sourcing pre-dates Biden taking office, often by over a year, the thing is just not relevant. Wikipedia is not the news, and not everything that gets some passing news coverage is worth creating an article on. At least up until 5 years ago the view was you had to impeach someone for something they did while in office, so this is just way too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I see no reason for that page to be other than a redirect to Marjorie Taylor Greene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert, the wikipedia is not a hagiography. It is not our job to sanitize things, to present an image of America that is without warts. Yes, it must be embarrassing to be an American, today, with an embittered former President who was impeached twice, barely escaping being removed from office, because the clock ran out. I am not unsympathetic, but American contributors can't let their feelings influence their choices as to what topics to cover, or not cover. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not embrassaed to be an American. I also see absolutely no way in which your comment here has an relevance to the subject at hand, or in any way explains how the article in question needs to exist and has any reason of being something other than a redirect to the article on the one person who has made an actual move in relation to the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Geo Swan, please don't be forum-posting here. Your comment is out of line, much more so than User:Johnpacklambert comment ("at least up until 5 years ago")--that comment was silly, but yours contains a personal attack as well. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly confused on why you want the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden removed also. This article I could understand, but the information is still relevant and highly notable to Wikipedia to mention. Having that article is actually better than this article in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With articles like this the issue is not just notability. It is, is there enough there to form a seperate article. Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect, and so the bar is not plain notability, but enough substance to justify having an article seperate from the article on the person they apply to. In this case, at present is is not clear why we need anything more than a passing mention on the page of the member of the US house who drafted the articles. We also need a step away from POV-pushing language and invoking words like "fringe" to describe elected members of the United States congress and a move to more measured and balanced discussion. What is 100% clear though is that we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person, leave them as a passing balanced note in a balanced biography of that person. This also leads me to observe our biographies of members of congress are ofen very sub-par.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person – WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTSCANDAL seem relevant here. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, Clarification please. Above you suggest, as if it was naturally obvious that "Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect..."
  Um, so the natural obvious choice of redirect target, was that Joe Biden, or Marjorie Greene?
  Shouldn't we structure our articles so our readers can access the information we offer in the way that best serves their interests, not the way that reflects our interests? Your comment suggests that you have one person you think this impeachment is related to, and no reader could be interested in this impeachment attempt, if they weren't primarily interested in that person.
  Well, what about individuals studying impeachment, in general, who aren't really interested in either Joe Biden or Marjorie Greene? Aren't they best served if we keep Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, and have links to that article in Joe Biden and Marjorie Greene?
  If we stuffed coverage of Greene's January 2021 impeachment attempt into the Joe Biden article are you satisfied with sending readers of the Marjorie Greene article to a subsection of the Biden article? Or vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent delete This simply does not exist. No inquiry has been launched. This needs to be speedily deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SecretName101, As I noted, above, there is an essay, WP:Arguments to avoid, that is so widely read, widely cited, many wikipedia contributors assume it is a policy.

Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:NOTBUILT.

So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: you are SEVERELY misinterperating that essay. I am arguing WP:Crystal Ball. That is a valid argument. You cannot write an article about things that neither exist nor are scheduled or planned to exist. For instance, I cannot write an article called "Presidency of Kamala Harris". It may happen someday, but is neither existant nor scheduled to happen. This is the same exact thing. SecretName101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is usually established when reliable sources write about something in meaningful detail. Reliable sources write about unfinished things, in meaningful detail, all the time. We start articles about things, even though they aren't complete, or even are merely at the planning stage, all the time. We start new articles on project that aren't complete, based on their RS coverage, every day. Those articles are not lapses from CRYSTAL, so long as those who work on them are careful. If they describe the project as sure to be completed, in the wikipedia's voice, that is a lapse from CRYSTAL. Otherwise, no.

For instance, Chinese industrialists announced grand plans to build a canal, in Nicaragua, to compete with the Panama Canal. We have an article on it, even though it will probably never be built, because the plans triggered significant detailed RS coverage.

I don't see how deletion of this article is consistent with policy or precedent.

Why, exactly, did you describe its deletion as URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: as you pointed out, NOTBUILT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The point it's making is that editors should avoid arguments [that] make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability, the examples (about something being notable before it's finished) are nothing more than that, examples to illustrate the point in an essay. It's irrelevant here as various delete !votes are citing sections of WP:NOT (most evidently CRYSTAL), which is policy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: This is not "unbuilt". Unbuilt would apply to something like, say, the space elevator, something that has not been constructed, but has been conceptualized. This is simply an example of an article being written about a non-existent event. It's urgent because it should instead be a speedy deletion. You'd probably be all for a speedy delete if I wrote an article about another event that simply has not happened, and is not planned to happen, like, say, the "Assassination of Boris Johnson", wouldn't you? Because at that point we're writing fiction. This is just the same, there is no inquiry, an inquiry does not exist. None has even announced to be in the works. There is no inquiry, period. This is an article written about a non-existent event. SecretName101 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wiki WP:Crystal Ball, it is a rule that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". There is ZERO verification that an inquiry will happen. GAME OVER.

And, by the way, side note. If an impeachment inquiry does ever get launched into Biden, it almost certainly will not come in the next two years from these proposed articles of impeachment (I'd eat my own hat if Nancy Pelosi said, "You know what. I went down the rabbit hole of the deep web last night, and I'm now on board with believing unmerited conspiracy theories about Joe Biden. Let's start an impeachment inquiry over this!") SecretName101 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101 I stand by my assertion your opinion lapsed from the excellent advice at UNBUILT.
Yes, I'd call for deletion if you or anyone else started Assassination of Boris Johnson or Plots to assassinate Boris Johnson, because they lapsed from WP:HOAX. It would be a hoax because there are no reliable sources that anyone plotted that terrible act.
The underlying topic of this article is well documented, where your hoax wouldn't be.
Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation as to why you consider it URGENT. Do you actually have reasoning to explain why it should be URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, yes, some other contributors cited sections of WP:NOT. But SecretName101 didn't. He used an argument that lapsed from the advice of ATA, and I pointed that out.

You cited WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL.

When is the last time you re-read NOTSCANDAL? It has five numbered points. So which of those five numbered points did you think applied here? I don't think ANY of those numbered points apply. _{You've got to actually read the wikidocuments you call upon.}

With regard to CRYSTAL, RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it. So the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article, that cites those RS is not an instance of CRYSTAL. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: actually, I always re-read policies before citing them because I'm an obsessive perfectionist. I think there's a strong case to be made that both points 3. Scandal Mongering (Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.) and 1. Advocacy/Propaganda (because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV) of NOTSCANDAL are applicable here. Secondly, because this AfD is about Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (which is absolutely a case of CRYSTAL) I've purposefully avoided discussing the merits of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. In fact, my original delete !vote explicitly points out they are different cases. While I'm happy to explain more fully my standpoint when other editors disagree with me, I don't find you accusatory comments about my competence helpful or relevant to the discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I overstruck the passage that seems to have bugged you. Since we have both re-read it, then we can both bring an informed arguments and counter-arguments. Point #1 and Point #3?

Marjorie Greene is a real Congressional Representative. She issued a real press release, and real newspapers and news channels had their smart political reporters comment on it. So, doesn't that make this a real thing that merits coverage on the wikipedia? Point #1 is a clause of WP:NOT, one of the wikipedia's policies, that bars using the wikipedia for Advocacy.

I think you and I, and everyone else here who really thought about it, agree to bar using the wikipedia for Advocacy.

The second sentence of point #1 says "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. "

Well, Greene's efforts are real, so they can be covered, so long as that coverage complies with NPOV. When an article covers a real phenomenon, that has been written about by RS, point #1 would require biased passages to be rewritten. It is simply not a justification to call for deletion.

You wrote: "...because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV. .." I think I know what UNDUE means. I don't know what "inherently UNDUE" means. In 2005 some POV-pushers tried to tell me that some topics were "inherently biased", and should not be covered, under any circumstances. It is my long held position that any topic, that is sufficiently well covered by good RS, can have a neutral unbiased article written about it.

Point #3's first sentence bars "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping." Are you asserting Green's press release relies on gossip, etc? Okay, so if the article only linked to Greene's press releases point #3 would be a valid argument that WP:NOT justified deletion But this article uses other RS that comment on Greene's efforts. If our coverage of the valid RSS lapses from NPOV, then NOT requires rewriting some passages. Not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She issued a real press release, and real newspapers and news channels - NOTNEWS (is there any indication, at all, that this will be even moderately significant 4 years down the line?)

bar using the wikipedia for Advocacy - I understand your concerns about not giving fair coverage to Trump vis-à-vis Biden. But in this case, it's bordering on advocacy to bend our BLP policy to add extensive coverage of what RS describe as mudslinging against Biden, that doesn't meet encyclopedic standards and is extremely poorly sourced (as our article on the Ukraine conspiracy theory outlines). And then add it to the current events portal for maximum exposure.

Greene's efforts are real, so they can be covered, when an article covers a real phenomenon, that has been written about by RS - Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) cover every single thing that exists, even topics covered by RS - our notability policies are much more nuanced than "the NYT published something, so we can/must include an article on it". NOTNEWS speaks directly to this.

I stand by my words "inherently undue". This impeachment inquiry does not exist and covering it like it does equates to using Wikipedia to assist a political attack on Biden. Jr8825 • Talk 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Where are there reliable sources for there being an impeachment inquiry? There are none. No impeachment inquiry exists, nor is one in the works. The article's title itself is arguably WP:HOAX. And again, you are severely misapplying that essay you keep bringing up. SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all the examples at NOTBUILT but one are about physical structures not being constructed. The exception is one example about an article being incomplete. These are not applicable to this deletion nomination in any sense. You are reaching, and way off-base with your interpretation of it here. Plus you ignore that my deletion argument was completely based on the wikipedia rule WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SecretName101 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: "RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it", again Greene's effort is NOT an impeachment inquiry. That is the whole point I am making. An inquiry is a specific proccess, which, in practice, needs to be initiated by either the Speaker or a majority vote of the House. It has not. No impeachment inquiry exists. This article is not justified AT ALL. Please pay attention to what I have been saying. SecretName101 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that frequent, but there are AFD where most people agree the article is about a notable topic, and should be kept - but that it requires a new name. We don't delete articles on notable topics because they have a bad name.

SecretName101, should I keep looking forward to your explanation as to why deletion is URGENTly required here? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: You already had my explanation, further proof you are not paying any attention to what I have written. And there already is an article on the subject of Greene's impeachment effort that is under an appropriate title (Efforts to impeach Joe Biden) that has ben mentioned countless times in this deletion discussion (you don't seem to be paying attention). So why would we keep a second article on the subject with a hoax title? SecretName101 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, 8,000-plus people viewed this yesterday. It is dangerous that they may either think Wikipedia gives voice to misinformation by having an article on a non-existent inquiry, or that they will believe Wikipedia, possibly walking away with the false perception that there is an impeachment inquiry against Biden, when there is not. I tried to fix this by changing the wording of the article to say that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated (how many people read this article before that happened, when it falsely said Marjory Greene had started an inquiry?). People can still easily misread what I changed it to, omitting the word not from their comprehension, which is dangerous. It does not make sense, and is arguably dangerous, for wikipedia to have an article about a non-existent inquiry. We need to purge false news quickly from this platform. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Just to reiterate, you writing, "Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation," tells me that you either ignored or simply did not read the explanation I gave, that it is urgent because this should instead be a speedy deletion, since no impeachment inquiry actually exists. SecretName101 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:NPOV. Until and unless there is substantial movement to impeach Biden that looks at least to carry a sizeable minority of House and Senate support, and coverage in multiple international sources, we should not have an article on this topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, not necessarily even then. If no inquiry has been launched, such an article is not needed, nor justified. Trump's second impeachment lacked an inquiry, for instance, thus no article for a second impeachment inquiry was created. SecretName101 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order - Ritchie333, doesn't WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete say NPOV isn't usually grounds to call for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This topic matter may be covered in a fraction of a sentence on Impeachments of presidents of the United States. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. This protest movement will die in committee and never see the light of day of a floor vote. What briefly needs to be said about it at all can be mentioned at the filer's bio and at Impeachments of presidents of the United States#Joe Biden. ValarianB (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Efforts to impeach Joe Biden be bundled into this AfD as well? ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant at best with other articles, serious WP:CRYSTAL concerns, and a sufficiently awkward title that it's not a sufficiently plausible search term to be made into a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As noted above, agree it should just be left in the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden page. It feels very WP:CRYSTAL at this point, it would be worth its own revisiting if it gets to the floor. FrogCrazy (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Comment If this is deleted, then I will begin questioning some integrity markers on Wikipedia. Second impeachment of Donald Trump started off almost being deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. People did vote to delete it while others voted to keep it. Going to quote from an editor who actually has commented on here: @SecretName101: who said "We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts." Honestly, in the last few months I have seen a lot of hypocrisy happening on Wikipedia. I know people can change minds, but at the same time, if there is a Efforts to impeach Donald Trump that includes information not related to his 2 impeachments, then an article titles Efforts to impeach Joe Biden that has information that is relevant to that title, then we should keep it. Wanting to put this for a discussion for editors who !voted delete & also wanting Secretname101's opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if I understand you here Elijahandskip. The discussion here is about whether we should have the article Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (IMO should be deleted - there is not yet an inquiry) in addition to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden which already talks to efforts (and IMO should stay as it is about efforts). From what I have seen, the impeachment articles current presented have not received widespread report and are not seen as likely to result in an impeachment inquiry being initiated, so there seems to me to be no value in the article we are voting on until something more substantial happens. I will admit I was not involved in the discussion on Second impeachment of Donald Trump, but I would have been equally opposed if it had no vote or realistic prospect of proceeding at the time of creation. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your meaning / the earlier context. FrogCrazy (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I understood the reason for this Afd. Below I started a section to get a vote to clarify what people mean when they vote. Honestly, a lot of the !vote deletes say to get rid of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as well as this one. I know this Afd is for this article specifically and doesn't affect that article. However, I was pointing out parts to those editors (The ones commenting to delete both articles) about how it would be stupid to do that. I was also pointing out hypocrisy from an editor who voted to keep that article about Trump and delete this article about Biden just about the same time of creation (1 day). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understand now, thanks. I that case I agree re. retention of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

FrogCrazy (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts. I stand by that, hence why I have not called for the deletion of the article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. We do however, need to wait for an inquiry to be opened before we create an article about an inquiry. SecretName101 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Would you mind giving an apology? Since it seems you were calling into question my integrity. SecretName101 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Yes, I do apologize for "questioning your integrity". I never did as I said people can change their mind. I am sorry for calling your a hypocrit though. I was mis-informed and though your "Urgent delete" comment included deleting Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. That was my bad. Sorry about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that implying someone is being hypocritical is questioning their integrity (hypocrites lack integrity). But apology accepted nonetheless. SecretName101 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. ~ HAL333 21:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not reflect that any such "inquiry" exists. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden#What the !Votes mean - Discussion for a discussion related to this Afd. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose merge As others has said, no official inquiry exists and only would exist when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces such inquiry which basically won't happen. Since no impeachment inquiry exists is not necessary to merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and the vast majority of above delete arguments. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and also delete Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. At this point there is one singular, futile effort by one person. This should be on the Marjorie Taylor Greene article, not masquerading as multiple legitimate "efforts". Reywas92^Talk 06:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This can't be a snow delete, because there is substantial opposition to deletion. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking, and other than Albertaont's opposition, I only see merge and delete votes (excluding those that have retroactively revoked their previous votes). Anyone else opposed in this comment section has failed to explicitly state their opposition. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is different from delete. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a substantial difference. A "merge" still is supporting eliminating this article. There has been next to no straight opposition to eliminating this article. SecretName101 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally the first sentence of the page: An impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, has not been initiated. Material should be on the efforts to impeach page at most. Nixinova T C 06:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden per Metropolitan90 and Elijahandskip respectively. There are WP articles for 'Efforts to impeach X' where X = every American president from Clinton through Trump. This impeachment inquiry against Biden (as well as any others should they occur) belong in an article with consistent naming conventions as for the other presidents. I don't know when the separate Impeachment of Donald Trump article was created, i.e. what the defining event was. If and when such an event occurs for Biden, I would recommend using that as guidance to determine whether a separate impeachment article for Biden should be created. (This could be generally applicable to future US presidents as well.)--FeralOink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge: From my understanding about the several negative issues surrounding Joe Biden, it's reasonable idea to merge "Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden" into "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" as it's the current situation and it would be the suitable subject for this case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This is pretty obvious. Why would we need two separate articles about what is essentially the same thing? Philosophy2 (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a non-notable event. While there may have been some news/RS coverage of these efforts, I believe this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events (emphasis added)) - Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on everything that is newsworthy; there is Wikinews for that. I also oppose a merge on the grounds that I also believe that Efforts to impeach Joe Biden should be deleted (for the same NOTNEWS reasons); but I appreciate that this discussion isn't for that. Some editors above have also argued that because this may become a 'thing' in the future; we should wait or merge; but that would (imo) simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Seagull123 Φ 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No merge, no redirect, per JayJay and Ritchie333. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden because this whole attempted impeachment topic is one of a number of events that are being noted by reliable sources in the last few weeks of politics.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:Contentfork. Efforts to impeach Joe Biden serves to cover relevant material just fine. Haleth (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying, 10,000 people have now seen this article about a non-existent inquiry. That is a problem. This should have been deleted far sooner. SecretName101 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in part because it was linked from Portal:Current events/2021 January 21 (which is how I found it). I've gone ahead and removed that link. (I've also added Efforts to impeach Joe Biden for now, despite my disagreeing with its existence.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm shocked this article was added to the current events portal. @Elijahandskip: these edits were a serious misjudgement, bordering on advocacy. Please be more careful. Jr8825 • Talk 14:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825:, I do not see it as a big misjudgement. The fact that I put this article instead of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden was a misjudgement, however, the information about the impeachment articles was nationally notable and deserved the portal. We have had problems in the past, but I do not like your accusation of advocacy. Would like for an apology for that since I did admit to a small misjudgement. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I wouldn't expect an apology. This was a criticism and a concern, not an accusation, and I think it was a fair one. Though note that Efforts to impeach Joe Biden did not exist at the time these edits were made. It was moved from draft after this discussion started (see above). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. There is no inquiry, and the effort will die a quick death just like the 2017 impeachment inquiry. Still, cataloging the unsubstantiated Qanon conspiracy theories against Biden is worthwhile --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly suprised you called it "Qanon conspiracy theories" since the impeachment articles aren't theories but fact. Not saying information they state is fact, just saying the impeachment articles themselves is a fact about Joe Biden's Presidency. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no "inquiry" and there will be no house investigation. The person bringing the articles to the floor is an avowed follower of QAnon so while yes there was an effort that died quickly it's factually inaccurate to say there is an investigation. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious POV fork to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your delete is more of a merge. Correct? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would suggest to delete this page and merge content of page Efforts to impeach Joe Biden to page Marjorie Taylor Greene, more exactly to this section: Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Donald_Trump_and_Joe_Biden. This is the case when a fringe claim by a person belongs only to page of that person, i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge, no redirect. Given the current state of American politics, anyone becoming president will end up with an "Efforts to impeach X" article about them. But an impeachment inquiry represents a specific step by the House that has not come close to happening here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. Nothing more to say than what has been said above. — Bilorv (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that in the meantime the page Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden has been converted to a redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. It remains to be sorted out here if this redirect, together with its page history, should be left as is, or plain deleted. IMO, SecretName101 articulates a pretty strong argument above in favor of the latter option. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked BD2412 why he speedy merged this article without closing this discussion and explaining why it was speedy merged. Given that that they also voted in this AfD I believe the speedy merge was inappropriate, especially without letting the AfD finish. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this discussion clearly wasn't completed. @Elijahandskip and BD2412: Where was this other discussion that supposedly came to consensus? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a merge proposal taking place during this AfD at Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. A number of folks who contributed to this discussion, especially advocating for deletion, did not participate in that discussion and there were a number of !votes at the end of that merge proposal opposing the merge, so I'm not sure how that could be a WP:SNOW closure either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Merger proposal. This discussion was closed (not by me) as "no consensus", which made the merger discussion the deciding issue. There was overwhelming consensus there. I don't see why this discussion was reopened.

To explain further, there is no "impeachment inquiry" in this case. There is an effort to start one. This discussion was closed as "no consensus", which left the nominated article in place. This is an absurd result, since it is clear that the vast majority of participants agree that there should not be an article at this title. BD2412 T 04:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history here, I think there may have been vandalism involved and that the closure of the AfD was in bad faith. Which would make the closure of the merger discussion premature. @Tbhotch, Nsk92, Steve M, and Drmies: Is that your assessment? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no impeachment inquiry but I'm not sure how one can see that this AfD was closed, not by an administrator, as no consensus and immediately come to the conclusion that there was a consensus on the other talk page to merge. Especially without taking into consideration the number of people here who want the article deleted and oppose a merge. Also this discussion was reopened because Elijahandskip first closed it and has been very involved in this discussion. How do you not see a problem with that? JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the discussion was closed as no consensus. I didn't go through the votes to insure that the closer was not involved in the discussion, as that would be a very unusual thing to happen. The other discussion was merely awaiting the closure of this one. There had been no new activity there for several days. BD2412 T 04:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, BD2412 got tripped up by the earlier sock's fake "no consensus" closure of this AfD. After that fake closure, BD2412 closed the merge discussion as "speedy merge". In the meantime, the sock had been blocked, this AfD semi-protected, and the sock's "no consensus" closure reversed. Then Elijahandskip NAC closed this AFD on the grounds that the merge discussion had been closed. Then I asked Elijahandskip to undo his closure of this AfD, which he has done. Then GPHemsley restored all the pages to their pre-merger close state, and I think we are where we should be, and the AfD can continue. Ultimately this damage was caused by the sock disruption, but the story shows that people need to be a bit more careful. Nsk92 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJay: I closed during the confusion because the Afd article in question (When I closed it) did not exist. I wasn't at all a "problem" as I thought I was just closing an Afd that had been merged. As Nsk92 said, there was a sock-puppet problem that lead to it being merged before the afd really concluded. I joined near the end of the ordeal and saw afd closed with a no consensus and that the existing article was already merged and no longer existed. After that, I just did the afd closer. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Just thought I would be helping. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: I wouldn't sweat it. I think it's clear you were operating in good faith, and we sorted it all out in the end. Just be more careful next time. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all pages in question to their pre-closure state to avoid any confusion. I think the majority of this was a misunderstanding. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GPHemsley, for doing that and restoring all the pages to their pre-closure(s) state. I think we should now just let this AfD proceed and see how it plays out. Hopefully there will be no more sock disruption here with various unintended consequences. Nsk92 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL --Kemalcan (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Efforts to impeach Joe Biden and there is nothing worthwhile to merge.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given there's a single person behind this and it doesn't appear to be going anywhere, it seems more appropriate to simply include this in her page. Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. We do have Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, as we seem to have such articles about every president. But there is currently no such thing as an "impeachment inquiry", just a publicity stunt by one congressperson. In fact that's what the opening sentence of this article states: "An impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, has not been initiated." This is an article about something nonexistent. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many people need to say delete before the article is removed? It's spurious, useless, repetitive, and possible to contribute to increased confusion giving undo legitimacy to a fringe perspective. Bkdb44 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkdb44: Most people agree that action should be taken, but people have several ideas about what precisely should be done: The article and its contents could be outright deleted, or a merge of some sort could occur. The discussion is probably past its peak, but accusations that it is "spurious" and "useless" are not very helpful. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What are we waiting for? This should be deleted, or at least merged, immediately. This is not an actual impeachment inquiry, and it's very misleading to give it such an article. Can we please take action on this? Cpotisch (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no inquiry, so it would not make a valid redirect. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. Political stunt in a chamber in which the likelihood of such an inquiry receiving enough votes is slim to none. It is not a legal mechanism in and of itself, but more an effort (emphasis mine) to begin the process of impeachment. Bkissin (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the comment by Nsk92 that a merge of relevant information has already taken place (though if I understand procedure correctly, no action should have been taken until this AfD was closed) I would change my vote to Delete. The information is in the Efforts article, and since an inquiry is not open nor does it have a realistic chance of opening, I don't see the need for two separate articles. Bkissin (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Efforts to impeach Joe Biden will be better. Currently, it's unlikely to go anywhere, and shouldn't have it's own article. I think it's notable enough to be merged, though. Eridian314 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted above multiple times, the relevant info has already been amply incoroprated in the article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as a separate section, Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Impeachment articles, with a link to a Wikisource as well. That's way more than the topic requires and nothing else needs to be merged. People shouldn't be saying 'merge' just for the sake of saying 'merge' when there's nothing left that needs merging. As others noted above as well, leaving a redirect in place of the current article (which usually results from a merge) would be misleading and harmful since it would convey the false impression that an impeachment inquiry exists when in fact it doesn't. Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, and the standard for their inclusion is not whether they convey a false impression, but whether they are useful. A redirect from a wrong term to an article explaining that the term is wrong is useful. If the target article doesn't have that explanation, it can be added if sourced. BD2412 T 18:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A factually misleading redirect is, by definition, not useful, at least in my book. It is actively harmful and should not exist. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: That's a really depressing standard you are pointing to. Furthermore the 'Efforts to impeach' article will not be able to say there is no impeachment inquiry going on, because there are no RS's that say there is no impeachment inquiry going on. Just like there are no RS's that say that Canada is not thinking of joining the United States. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rep. Marjorie Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden a day after he was sworn in last week. ... There is no indication the impeachment inquiry has any momentum in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives". Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama could be impeached after Trump, Ted Cruz says, The News & Observer (January 27, 2021). BD2412 T 19:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: a factually misleading redirect is not useful. It does active harm to Wikipedia and should be deleted for that reason. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used for perpetuating misinformation, even indirectly. As a couple of more extreme hypothetical examples, say, a redirect of "Satanic plot against Trump" to QAnon or a redirect of "False flag January 6, 2021 operation" to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol would need to be quickly deleted for similar reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source referenced a "Satanic plot against Trump" as a synonym for QAnon (rather than as a belief proposed by QAnon), that would be a different matter. BD2412 T 21:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is no inquiry currently happening; the subject of the article literally does not exist. WP:CRYSTAL clearly applies here. There should be no redirect or merger either, as all relevant content is already present in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. --WMSR (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WMSR, et al. We are not be in conjecture or forecasting business. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request closure Clear consensus to delete, this has gone on long enough. Nixinova T C 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, this AfD has run its course. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although really, as per above, this has run its course, I'm very likely unintentionally rehashing arguments already made by others above) While there is some allowance for some non-neutral titles/redirects (as possible search terms, ex. Daily Fail), keeping this as even a redirect is factually misleading, as this is not happening and is not going to happen, so WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:CFORK both rule against it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 23:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: Why? Afd is (and discussions on WP in general are) not a vote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Well, the article's notability on its own is not enough as there have been many examples of such proposals throughout the history. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 23:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, not that again. As it has been pointed out umpteenth times above already, everything from this article that needed to be merged to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden has already been merged and then some. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 29 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 21:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Dream of the U.S.A.[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any remotely notable recording of the song and there is no indication that the musical score itself is notable for any particular reason. Lennart97 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed with nominator. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, HĐ (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all other editors. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Newspapers.com search for the song title and one of the composers shows well over a hundred newspaper stories referring to the piece. Most of stories are from the first half of the 20th century, so while the piece may not be well known now, it was then. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or Draftify The hurdle here is WP:NALBUMS, I did a google book search and found several minor mentions. Wasted Time R your link shows mentions, but you have not shown that it meets any of the criteria in WP:NALBUMS if you can show that it meets any criteria I would be happy to change my vote. Jeepday (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The music notability criteria are largely oriented towards the modern music industry and are not very useful for a piece composed and popularized in 1908. I've captured the edit view of the article and after it's deleted and when I have a chance I will look at recreating it with the sources in these old newspaper articles. I'm guessing that I'll be able to come up with something solid enough to take to DYK. But I won't know for sure until I try it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Time R You can request that the article be turned into a draft WP:DRAFT This is often an option in place of deletion where someone wants to try and rescue an article and there is potential for it to be saved. I have updated my vote to support that option. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Needs more sourcesJenyire2 (talk) 18:31, 27 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) 01:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ali (cricketer, born 1975)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Imran Ali that Wisden have was born in 1980. As he never played first class cricket he is not notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no obvious list of redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but utter failure of GNG and little hope of this ever changing - neither the Arabic or Egyptian Arabic language versions of the article contain anything extra. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is a very poor guide for cricketers such as this, but fails all meaningful notability guidelines. No sources beyond wide ranging statistical databases, which results in SYNTH/OR in order to build an article. No suitable merge/redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:GNG. A lot still needs to be done Jenyire2 (talk) 18:32, 27 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 810s BC. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

817 BC[edit]

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

The only thing of note that supposedly happened in this year is factually wrong according to another sourced Wikipedia article. Also, most other years in the decade are just a redirect. 777burger ^talk ^contribs 22:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 810s BC per nom (without merging its content, which is indeed incorrect as pointed out above). Lennart97 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 810s BC there is not enough actual content to justify the superstructure of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 810s BC. No content to merge and nothing to list. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. There's no context here, and only one tiny datum of content that is possibly incorrect, so it's useless for our core readership, students. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an another options per above. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:33, 27 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 Reform Party of Ontario. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Party of Ontario[edit]

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

Just another short-lived party that failed registration and promptly folded. It already has a brief mention on Reform Party of Ontario (where its membership, or at least leadership, migrated) and that's more than enough; there's nothing to say about this one except for their declared principles, which just makes it come across as a promotion— in fact the history suggests it was created by someone connected to the party.

This article hit AfD before, in 2006, but was kept because it was then an active party that could amount to something; fifteen years later, I think it's safe to say they didn't. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. with Reform Party of Ontario. Per nom, it was never really active (hence my search turning up zero useful results). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:45, 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 merge to John F. Kennedy International Airport. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Steve[edit]

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

Biographical article about a minorly-famous air traffic controller. Subject is not notable enough for it to warrant its own article. Out of the sources only one (albeit inputted twice (NY Times)) and a potential second; albeit a youtube link are notable, the rest are blog entries, yet more youtube posts, an article explaining retirement ages not really relevant nor does it mention the subject and a Google web engine search(!). Could potentially be moved to the main JFK airport article if warranted, but that is not why I am nominating this for deletion. Nightfury 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to John F. Kennedy International Airport - worth a mention as part of the airport's lore (especially with a NYT sourcing), but insufficiently notable for a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP. In effect, there's a single reliable source about this person. See also WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 26 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump–Raffensperger phone call[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS point 2. There’s been none or barely any coverage of this event since January 5. No evidence of enduring notability here. SK2242 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This really big NYT piece is from January 15. It suggests that an investigation on the phone call is indeed happening, and will involve outside counsel. This local piece was published January 18. This will not be the last we hear about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out these sources. I had been unable to find them while doing a search. Closing. SK2242 (talk) 22:06, 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) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight characters[edit]

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

Article content not notable enough to be worthy of its own dedicated article; it can be covered in Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight, but nothing in this article looks salvageable. Gigantic article more suited for a fan wiki, and unsourced (okay, one--probably unreliable--"source"). ~EdGl talk 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While character lists can be valid spinouts of articles, they actually need to be comprised of sourced information and be able to pass WP:LISTN and/or the WP:GNG. This list is only using a single source, which appears to not only be a dead link, but was just the program scheduling for a single episode. I've done some searches, and I am really not finding any coverage of the characters from the show in reliable sources that could support this spinout article. There is already basic coverage of the major characters in the "Plot" section of the main Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight article, and there is really no content in this article that is actually salvageable for merging, as there is no sourced information. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nom) - Oof, evidently there are a lot more Kamen Rider series, and more "List of Kamen Rider: [subtitle] characters" articles... should they all go through AFD as well, or merged into one catch-all List of Kamen Rider characters article, or just merged into their own series articles (as appropriate)? Not sure the best way to proceed. ~EdGl talk 17:04, 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 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) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISET Policy Institute[edit]

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

No significant coverage found in searches-fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 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. It's snowing here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard Seed Academy[edit]

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

Promotional profile of a private tuition college in Japan, created in 2011 and since then sourced only to its own website. The ja.wiki article was deleted in 2014 for lack of notability. A search in Japanese produces no RIS so it’s really a total fail of WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FozzieHey (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Acabashi (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notablity not even asserted in the article. ~EdGl talk 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, and the sourcing fails WP:ORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alex-h (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to clearly failing the standards of notability for organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Express deleted, fails notability standards. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:29, 27 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. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Game Closure[edit]

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

Non-notable complany damiens.rf 19:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every source just mention a company named Blackstorm that had a somewhat successful facebook game (EverWing) back in 2016. Is it the same company? Has it been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources? --damiens.rf 17:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sourcing in the article is terrible right now, but there is sourcing out there. See, for example, this in GamesIndustry.biz, this in Pocket Gamer, this in VentureBeat and this in TechCrunch, all from about a 20-second search. Clearly, the company passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:07, 24 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 Game Closure. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carter (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non notable person damiens.rf 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Game Closure, I could only find passing mentions and primary sources, and as a result he fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Game Closure for the reasons enunciated by Devonian Wombat; there might be some citations or content that could be selectively merged. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Müller (referee)[edit]

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

His common name makes a WP:BEFORE search difficult but I have tried combinations of "Werner Müller" and 'schiedsrichter' as well as 'referee' and not found any more than the usual exhaustive database listings, name checks in match reports and a couple of images of him. The article itself makes no assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG on evidence available. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:17, 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) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Pigeon[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant. Fails WP:NCORP. Spam and promotional article. Comments against the article citations is below. RationalPuff (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources

[5] Run-of-the-mill restaurant profile/guide.
[6] Project details of the Interior design firm
[7] Run-of-the-mill restaurant profile/guide.
[8] passing mention in a Travel Guide article
[9] Project details of the Wall Murals installation firm
[10] deadlink but it doesn't look like a reliable source anyway.
[11] Interior Design Award (https://sites.ndtv.com/daawards/awards-2017-interior-award-hospitality/) for the firm designed it. An organization is not notable merely because a notable event was associated with it. WP:INHERITORG However, this could have held some water if it was something iconic and there were WP:SIGCOV, WP:MULTSOURCES
[12] Page doesn't show anything linked to the subject.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems overly promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a spam and promotional article.VocalIndia (talk) 16:44, 25 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 Sectors of Islamabad. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F-7, Islamabad[edit]

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

Not a notable sector. Akronowner (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sectors of Islamabad. This is more of a planning zone than a distinct neighborhood, would need better sources for notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sectors of Islamabad article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sector is more important than F-6, Islamabad for to its commercial activity. --Pakieditor (talk) 11:48, 24 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, bad faith nomination. MER-C 12:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. Mark Lanier[edit]

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

Fails in passing WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Mark Lanier. WP:Notability is not evanescent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times is asserting notability in an article titled "Vioxx Verdict Raises Profile of Texas Lawyer". If the NYT devotes an entire article to his "raised profile" it is significant coverage, per GNG. -- GreenC 22:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article now prove he passes the general notability guidelines. This includes the New York Times article mentioned, which also is the first thing that appears if you click the reference search link at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NYT ref. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion . TwinTurbo (talk) 01:09, 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 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) 01:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Graduate Network[edit]

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

The three references provided do not meet the bar for WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. They are: the company's website, a student newspaper and the last one is not sigcov. A WP:BEFORE search did not reveal any reliable sources. There is a Canadian organisation called "National Black Graduate Network", on which there is coverage, but they are a different company. Looking at the creator's talk page, there seems to be a case of undisclosed COI/promo editing ongoing. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 CS Mioveni season[edit]

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

Another stats article which violates a number of elements of WP:NOT. Clearly not given the presumed notability under WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. If anything notable did happen this season, it can be covered in the main article in one or two sentences (the CS Mioveni is not so long that that would be a problem). Essentially, this article is an (incomplete) collection of statistics on a season that does not meet notability guidelines on its own; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also previous consensus at this, this, this and many others. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaji Dutta[edit]

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

No indication of nobility. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. If you can find two or more reliable sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 26 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 List of tallest structures in Romania. User:Elliot321, will leave the redlinks to you :) Daniel (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CET Pitești[edit]

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

I'm not sure a chimney is very notable. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched for a bit now, and I can't find any information anywhere that isn't "It's a chimney that's pretty tall in Romania, and it was part of a power plant that was never built." or some variation on that. I think (I'm not sure) that the article was created to promote a youtube video. casualdejekyll (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest structures in Romania—and remove the redlinks on that list, so this doesn't happen again. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 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 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) 01:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnsberg[edit]

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

This article only cites sources from the 1100s and 1800s. I wasn't able to verify any of the article's claims in sources accessible online, and they don't appear to have been mentioned in a single modern source. The only mention of this family on the German Wikipedia is an unsourced addition from 2015 [13] to the list article List of Frankish knight families. I'm not seeing evidence that this is a no(ta)ble family. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:31, 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) 01:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kaipallil[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG none of the claimed roles appear to significant and on filmibeat.com they are only listed as a minor role in "Masterpiece" and nothing else. KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:toosoon. This appears to be a character actor who only got his big break in 2020. Prior to that, his roles were cameos or redshirts. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 26 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 Donald Trump. If anyone wants to selectively merge content to Trump's article, please feel free to access the content from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Party (political party)[edit]

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

While there are news articles about this hypothetical party, I think this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - it is based on reports/rumours, and there's been nothing official (yet) - so I don't think it is notable enough to have its own article. If in the future, this becomes official, or there is significant coverage about this, it may warrant an article then; but until that happens, I don't think there should be one now. Seagull123 Φ 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article knowing that a nomination for deletion might happen as I just wanted to post some initial info on the topic. Maybe this article should be drafted for now as the info might be useful for the future. X-Editor (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my Patriot Party draft page, edit it if you want. X-Editor (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@X-Editor: if you didn't know about this before, you may find that doing that sort of thing in a draft or userspace draft is better in the future. Seagull123 Φ 16:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: I've changed it to a draft page. X-Editor (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At minimum I think this needs to be moved to a different title, as "(political party)" is not the right identifier. But generally, I do think an article would need to show that something will form, otherwise this is WP:TOOSOON. --Enos733 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733:

Note: this was moved by Lee Vilenski from Patriot Party (Donald Trump) earlier today. Seagull123 Φ 16:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:CRYSTAL. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Let’s see what happens in the coming days, weeks and months. It could develop in similar and more radical form to the Tea Party of the previous decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.143.142.44 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: “We’ll do something, but not just yet,” Trump told journalist Rob Crilly of the Washington Examiner. (sorry if it’s formatted incorrectly) 35.143.142.44 (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump, though I would wager this will probably become notable soon. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliot321: Merging this article with the Donald Trump article would be a good course of action imo. X-Editor (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:CRYSTAL in response to anon's comment). Trump has made many comments; doesn't mean something will come out of it. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Political positions of Donald Trump. The linked page contains a description of DJT's partisan affiliation towards the top, and there is already a reference there to the possibility of creating a Patriot Party. In any case, it is unlikely that this will add significantly more value towards that page, so I lean a bit towards delete. Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump for now. At present it is no more than an idea that it is alleged Mr. Trump has floated in discussions with others. It does not exist in any concrete form, nor has it done anything, ran any candidates or anything else. The concept at best fails not news guidelines among others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main Trump article, nothing more than what would be one of his ranting tweets had he not been suspended. If/when it does happen, the article can be created. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The parenthesis in the name is all wrong, too; see Patriot Party (1960s–1980s), which also existed in the United States. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON ChipotleHater (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:TOOSOON but might well become a thing later on so best to keep the barebones in the history. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. For the most part this article is total speculation and in no way passes WP:GNG. — Czello 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't just delete it yet. We have to wait and find out if the "Patriot Party" rumors are true or not. 11:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:2D00:B211:6C87:E37A:9814:5F8B (talk)
Why do we? There needs to be proof it's A Thing before there's justification of the article's existence. — Czello 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, as others above have argued. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Multiple news outlets are now reporting that Trump has abandoned the idea: 1,2 This reinforces what I and others have argued in opposing this article's existence. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again Wikipedia editorship is being stupid (in my humble opinion) and looking silly trying to eliminate basic coverage of emerging/new but real things. What is real? At least that "Patriot Party" is a real concept. It is a spectre for some/many. I have myself only just heard of it, i.e. the idea that Trump would form a new party has existed but now it has a name. Let the Wikipedia article cover it, be updated as the concept evolves and as something that looks more like a real party emerges or does not. And, duh, of course, there will be lots and lots and lots and lots of coverage, and it is stupid/silly to stick your head in the sand and deny that. My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: it doesn't even exist yet, though. As the lead says: it is a hypothetical political party. Also, even if it were real, its mere existence wouldn't be reason to keep it. Seagull123 Φ 23:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!Voters here, at least some so far and more who will arrive, are stuck on "but it's not a regular/formal political party, it's not real". However, it is real...it has been real for quite a while, it is a thing. What it is though is a concept, a threat of coming into existence, which has already affected a lot of politicians and their choices and real events. And it has been covered, mentioned, discussed in depth even, many times over. You just don't want to accept a newly coined name for it? --Doncram (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this term used in any news articles or blogs yet, but it absolutely does exist just like a fleet in being is a very real force in warfare. Which affects persons and decisions and world events hugely. The existence of the German battleship Tirpitz in fjords in Norway during World War II was a big deal. Don't tell the United Kingdom that it wasn't real, even though it was not actively sailing out and attacking convoys. Sure, the article should be revised to emphasize that what "it" is is not a real party (yet), and to explain what it is, instead. Pretending it doesn't exist would not have been a good strategy for the United Kingdom, either. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an untrue suggestion, but at this point this is more of a tugboat in being. Political career of Donald Trump is a good place for this until it gets itself a destroyer in being at least. Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fleet and the Tirpitz existed and could have been deployed. If they had merely been concepts, the UK would have been much less impressed, i.e., not at all. We don't have to pretend that the party doesn't exist because there is no party. Trump hasn't filed the paperwork, rented an office, hired staff, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. BilCat (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Donald Trump per nom and also per WP:TOOSOON. NaranjaLujosa ^{let's talk!} 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Trump floated the idea without taking any steps to found a party and now seems to have abandoned it, per sources cited in comment by 1990'sguy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, perhaps, as another editor suggested, redirecting to Donald Trump (for now, assuming the party is created). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL. Maybe include in a brief paragraph to the Trump article, but not enough for its own yet. Jlevi (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Donald Trump article, in the "Post-presidency" section. Whether Trump has or has not abandoned the idea, the fact this was considered is noteworthy. Deleting without merging would be a bad idea. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jumping the cannon. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The party is already in its infantile stages, and it's worth reading the Fox San Antonio article describing the party's legal standing and its purported membership. Even if the party is not necessarily the same one as the one Trump envisioned, it's worth keeping on Wikipedia, just like the small "Conservative Party" organizations in the USA are represented, despite their long-term insignificance. Crazy Horse 1876 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the party is not yet official, it already looks like it’s about to be. Keep for now. 65.128.197.189 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge content into Donald Trump article. The party hadn't been 100% established, but only announced by Trump. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction, but Trump never announced the party -- reports from news outlets state that he privately discussed possibly forming a new party, though those same news outlets now report that he abandoned the idea. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Donald Trump, this probably deserves a sentence-long mention there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned by Crazy Horse 1876, etc. The fact that it's being considered in the first place is pretty notable. (If WP:TOOSOON, then my second choice would be to Merge to the Post-presidency section of "Donald Trump".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:56, 28 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 all, clear consensus exists. Daniel (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook[edit]

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

In continuation of previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium, the consensus is that centuries on these grounds are not prestigious enough for a list. No source discuss them as a group, fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Wikipedia is not...WP:NOT and pick one. --ARose Wolf 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous AfD outcome and WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the main ground article, where that does not create issues with regards to WP:NOTSTATS/WP:SPLIT. Taken on their own they are a gross violation of WP:NOT, but in the context of the main article about the ground international centuries are not indiscriminate, or without context or explanation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact same debate we are having with regards to lists of centuries by individual players. If you say they are a gross violation of WP:NOT then it makes no different if the lists appear on a separate list or on a player's or ground's article, it is policy. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that they should not be taken alone, but as part of the main article, and as such do not violate NOTSTATS – not excessive or indiscriminate, have context and explanation, and are reliably sourced. NOTSTATS does not mean "no stats". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is they shouldn't. It's not the job of Wikipedia to be a collection of statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per previous AfDs. Not at all convinced that exhaustive lists by venue are at all useful. Nigej (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Sources do not seem to discuss such events as a list, per previous AFD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a stats website. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 15:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I'm not unhappy about deleting every List of centuries on... article tbh. I'm not convinced that most of these have a place on ground articles either, beyond a short prose summary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all under WP:NOTSTATS. Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Regards --Kemalcan (talk) 12:26, 28 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) 01:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparaoki Oka Nela Thappindi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 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 speedy redirect to Come Away. Bad faith nomination and block evasion. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 14:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Nash[edit]

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

I have decided to create a page on Jordan Nash which is getting reverted by an editor by citing phony reasons. I wish to know if the page deserves to be on Wikipedia so I am initiating this discussion, thanks Jinahpol (talk) 14:26, 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) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Novoa[edit]

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

Quite simply this person doesn't appear to be notable. The entire article reads as a puff/promotional piece. All the sources appear to be unreliable, most are sourced to the "Latin Australian Times", what appears to be a local community newsletter of the type that will publish any story about their community. A short lived paper with almost no presence and nobody else talking about them. Searching for this person through reliable news sources isn't turning up anything. I will note the person appears to be adept at self-promotion, and there are some definite puff pieces out there, but nothing that establishes his notability in any real reliable source. He once appeared as a supporting role in a minor soap opera for 1 episode, that's not a claim to actor fame. I just can't find any reliable third party, not connected, sources that help establish notability here. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned nomination of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing much there to source. Nominator makes a compelling argument and after conducting a WP:BEFORE search myself the same conclusion is met. Fails WP:N. On a side note: Our "local newsletter" was discussing the continued growth of a new baby moose, born last May, and the traffic jam caused by herding caribou. They held up three snowmobiles for 45 minutes. Can I write an article on that? --ARose Wolf 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and the comical but very true comments of ARoseWolf. There is nothing of encyclopedia notability about a 7th level master of the Chinese martial arts, not considered "renowned such as being inducted into the Martial Arts Hall of Fame", that is charitable with a sketchy work history. This is why "plenty of sources" (12 on the article with 7 from Latin Australian Times) does not mean the sources advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for actors or martial artists and I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to undisclosed conflict of interest, lack of any quantifiable accomplishments, that this is a resume, and because it's spam. In 2008, I could have assumed good faith, but in 2021, everybody knows Wikipedia forbids this sort of page. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 26 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 Houston Baptist Huskies#Venues and facilities. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrels Field[edit]

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

Stadium which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only hosted TWO matches in its history-not enough to pass GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is blatantly inaccurate, there are two matches listed because they include professional teams, but it has hosted numerous college soccer matches every year since it opened. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Smartyllama. As he said, Sorrels Field hosts many other college soccer matches. Therefore, it should be kept. --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Division I College soccer stadiums are notable, and the suggestion that it "has only hosted two matches in its history" shows a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. Those are just the two matches involving professional teams, it has hosted numerous college soccer matches every season since it opened. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but convert to redirect and incorporate article contents into Houston Baptist University. This was originally a redirect, and it has 7 incoming links. It was only recently converted into an article. If the result of this discussion is that it fails WP:GNG, it should be retained as a redirect, not deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you can vote redirect directly. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the suggested Redirect to Houston Baptist Huskies, it's a better target than the original redirect. (But the Huskies article should be expanded a little to incorporate the information currently in the Sorrels Field article). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Baptist Huskies. I think that is a better target location than the one suggested by @Colonies Chris:. Giant Snowman 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Baptist Huskies - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD; this piece of architecture would need to pass one or the other to have an article. The fact that it is a stadium does not make it exempt from meeting our notability guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Baptist Huskies - per above fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. No SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 16:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP and as a reasonable consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No redirect, keep it with the actual information. Having it as a real article is better than putting in a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added some secondary sources, this article all has reliable information with multiple primary and secondary sources. --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources provide nothing more than a passing mention and do nothing to establish notability. Does this stadium get any coverage at all in the media or is it just the university websites? I stand by my 'redirect' comment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's supposed to have secondary sources, but why do we absolutely need them. If you think about it, an article with actual information is better than just a redirect. This article has more information and more sources than other college soccer stadiums. There are other articles with just one primary source, so why should this one be deleted when those other ones aren't? --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a stadium to qualify for an article, it needs to meet the normal Wikipedia inclusion criteria for structures; WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. I would expect to see secondary sources covering all aspects of the stadium including history, notable events, facilities etc. There are many good examples of articles that can be used for guidance, for example Lumen Field and Carrow Road. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 27 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.

Keep All the teams in the league have the stadium articles. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Don Scott (Ontario author). Daniel (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Options[edit]

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

An interesting case. This party (which only counted a single member, and was never formally registered) certainly didn't make any waves, running in a single election and winning only 1.67% of the vote. However, it did seem to receive some coverage in the mainstream press— but seemingly only because the founder, Don Scott, was a bit of a notable figure. Accordingly, I think all information here should be merged into his page, as there is little to say about this one-time outfit that doesn't directly pertain to the man himself. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Don Scott, the party wasn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree. Enough coverage to get a decent mention in Scott's article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 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 redirect to North Shore, California. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Beach, California[edit]

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

The only source is GNIS, though that has been obscured by maintenance edits. The only significant mention I found of it described it as one of a number of residential developments sprung up around the Salton Sea, and that's what aerials and topos show as well. I'm not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Rationale the same as every other California micro-stub: GNIS is not a reliable source, and GNIS is the only source cited here. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Desert Beach seems to have a bit of history as a resort area. It was originally home to a large resort and an associated community of vacation homes, and hosted regattas on the Salton Sea; see [14] [15] [16]. The resort area flooded in the 1950s, which prompted quite a bit of coverage in Southern California newspapers; see [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. While coverage of Desert Beach drops off after the flood, it's still described as an active community in at least one 21st-century story. All put together I think it sums up to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31; the article needs to be expanded. Thank You-RFD (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Shore, California. Desert Beach is a part of North Shore (the part around Desert Beach Drive and the marina). The yatch club is now the North Shore Beach and Yacht Club. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Shore, California or to Salton Sea. Netherzone (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no need for these GNIS stubs. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 26 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 Goss#History. On reconsideration after the relist, consensus is clear enough that this should not be kept, and the "delete" side makes no argument against a redirect as an WP:ATD. Sandstein 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angus R. Goss[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 died a Marine Gunner is not notable. His role as namesake of the USS Goss is covered on that page Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Goss as the ship's otherwise-not-establishable-as-notable namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Having a warship named after you is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. Having a ship named after you is not an award or honor (you can't wear a ship in your fruit salad) and notability is not inherited from the ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no having a warship named after you is not a significant honor or award when for odd reasons the navy feels a need to name every vessel after a person while at the same time churning out hundreds of such vessels. In the context of the actual project in which a vessel was named after Mr. Goss, it does not constitute a significant enough honor to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- when for odd reasons the navy feels a need to name every vessel after a person while at the same time churning out hundreds of such vessels Er...JPL, what exactly are you trying to say here? Because I can't make heads or tails of this, even more so than your usual AFD rantings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person does not mean they are or were not important. The basic notability guideline is that they receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Any other criteria should only be used if you presume notability but the risk is that presumed notability can be rebutted with evidence and facts. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 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 no consensus. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not merely the sourcing currently in the article; similarly, notability is enduring and the age or longevity of a topic does not factor in to notability judgments.

Editors advocating deletion largely did not engage with these points (which the "keep" editors brought up, even if they didn't include ALLCAPS links with them) or outright contradicted them. While those advocating deletion rightly point out that a single source is not sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG, none appear to have looked beyond WP:GHITS or the current sourcing. The most charitable reading of the delete argument is that the short-lived nature of the organization suggests that adequate sourcing never existed and cannot be found.

Those advocating we keep the article produced an additional (minor) source and argued that the organization's inclusion in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities strongly suggests additional sources exist offline. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but it rebuts the idea that adequate sourcing never existed or cannot be found.

Discussion was limited and this issue was not resolved. Since participants could not come to a conclusion on the availability of sources, there is no consensus to delete. — Wug·a·po·des 01:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Beta Phi[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORGDEPTH. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass either of those threshholds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very short lived fraternity that maxed out at 6 chapters, existed for 4 years, and is basically covered in one book that seeks to be the total directory of all fraternities in the US. We need more sourcing than this to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnpacklambert the "one book" (Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities) in question had various editions published over a 140 year period and *is* viewed as the reference book in the field. I'd like to confirm the longer chapter list, I'd hope Jax MN could include which editions the longer chapter lists occur in (or the specific yearboooks) . If the group did last until the 1920s with that chapter list, it make the threshold.Naraht (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what "threshhold"? Definitely not WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment only mentions the 6 chapters, not the about two dozen that sprung up afterwards over a longer time period.Naraht (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and that changes how it meets WP:GNG how exactly? There is no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added a reference link within the article to the Baird's Manual Archive, a curated online resource which I'd only recently discovered. It's a massive continuation of archival study of these collegiate societies, based on the work of William Raimond Baird. It remains the seminal reference for the field. Jax MN (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. The group existed, and has enough available history from respected sources to flesh out a useful start page. It was NOTABLE while active, and notability doesn't change over time. Since the article was written, additional reference sources and reports of multiple additional chapters have been found. The larger question remains, with an active group of Wikipedians working on Fraternity and Sorority (F&S Project) articles, and self-policing with consistent rules for notability, why insert random and arbitrary AfD PRODs that cause a large amount of wasted effort in the debate process? See Jason Scott Sadofsky's Notacon presentation on the "wasted effort" subject.^[1] I support Inclusionism, over Deletionism, which is a much broader debate. I agree that Deletionism is a hold-over philosophy, constrained by print-era thinking. "Deletionism" harms Wikipedia, by contributing to WP community disintegration, and decreasing the motivation of new authors and editors. Further, I don't see the point of aggressive deletion here, when, a) the society exists, b) it has good references, c) the article is readable and well-formed, d) a motivated group of editors is actively involved in improving stubs like this, and e) it is uncontroversial (compared to the flurry of self-promotional or silly articles created each day. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable.

I'm going long on this response, in support of WP and our Project. Onel5969, you appear to be a pro editor, with a lengthy resume. --A film expert, among other things. I'd never presume to step into that space, and salt film and actor articles with random AfD PRODs just because I think an actor was "too minor" to earn a page. I leave those decisions in your capable hands. In the same way, I have a long history in researching these collegiate groups, as do other passionate supporters of the F&S Project. Let us self-police these for notability, eh? Our own approach would deny pages to some 6,000 transitory local groups which I propose are "not yet notable." I hope you see the logic in this, and I am not arguing bad faith on your part. A novelist, Nicholson Baker wrote the most trenchant remark, saying, Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come. [...] It's harder to improve something that's already written, or to write something altogether new, especially now that so many of the World Book–sanctioned encyclopedic fruits are long plucked. There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work—even to the point of laughing at nonstandard "Engrish." They poke articles full of warnings and citation-needed notes and deletion prods till the topics go away.^[2]

I don't think you are mocking. Just over-zealous in deleting this page, and one or two others where we have crossed paths. I urge you, and other good-faith editors or admins to reconsider the aggressiveness of some of the deletion efforts impacting articles like this. Jax MN (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jason Scott (2006-04-08). "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" (transcript). Notacon 3. Archived from the original on 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
^ J.P. Kirby (October 20, 2007). The Problem with Wikipedia. J.P.'s Random Ramblings.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has one source it gathers its information from and a search doesn't reveal anything to further add. In regards to aggressive deletions, I have never brought an article up for deletion and I wouldn't. I will, however, base my !vote upon the criteria by which Wikipedia has given us to judge notability. The subject does not pass the criteria found in WP:N and therefore should not be included. --ARose Wolf 18:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This debate, "Deletionism versus Inclusionism is much bigger than this singular AfD. One of the references I posted predicted that if WP maintains the higher bar of inclusion, to only allow articles which meet our present sensibilities of what is "notable", as inspired by paper-based experience, we run the risk that another bigger, broader resource will "top" us, and become a more important research tool. It may seem a distant threat now, but Artificial Intelligence is improving on a logarithmic scale, and soon, fully-automated research may render Wikipedia a quaint, limited resource that is absorbed, then ignored. The organization's title is un-ambiguous. Hence, I prefer to let people decide to read it, curating for themselves, and not taking that choice from them. And as other authors have noted, WP's notability rules are unsettled, and arbitrary. All of which is why I wish to keep the article. Without it, a Civil War, or collegiate researcher or a genealogist faces a dead end. Keeping it causes no harm. Jax MN (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that keeping it does cause harm. How do we know where to improve upon the criteria if the criteria is constantly circumvented? How do we know where to improve if we shrug our shoulders at policy and go around it almost at will? I would argue that every article that does not unequivocally prove notability, not based on personal criteria or feelings but the strict criteria within this organization causes irrevocable damage to our ability for continuous improvement. These instances of simply ignoring the criteria will cause more harm in the future and only slow the inevitable demise unless quick intervention is administered by way of process. Proverb: You cant see the forest is on fire because you are hiding in a tree. --ARose Wolf 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems self-evident to me that the existence and operation of a society that was no doubt a major influence in the lives of the students who joined it is notable in some Platonic sense. That the society failed to persist doesn't change the importance of its brief existence. Nor does heavy reliance on Baird's indisputably authoritative work in the field suggest any less notability: indeed, its inclusion in Baird seems to me to support its notability as a sort of endorsement by the premier authority of fraternalism and its history. It is difficult to see why the innumerable "atlas" articles mechanically reporting on tiny rivers or other geographical features could be considered more notable. The important thing here is that the article is properly sourced, factually reportable on an objective basis, and non-trivial. The presence of articles on esoteric or obscure subjects is one of the strengths of Wikipedia, and the article's presence does not harm or make less prominent any other work. To erase true facts on a WP:N basis should accordingly face a high burden, which this article does not come close to meeting imho. Leave the poor article alone; it isn't hurting anyone, and perhaps might answer someone's question one day. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Citizensunshine, and your policy based argument for this is... ? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodness, what a rapid response! At base, it's an issue of the "burden of proof" to show that the article fails the WP:N criteria -- which I view as high. Under WP:N, it seems the only real objection could be that there are an insufficient multiplicity of reliable, independent sources. (The age of the fraternity seems clearly addressed by the precept of "Notability is not temporary.") As for GNG, since it's clearly based on substantive coverage (rather than a mere mention or "trivial" or "incidental" coverage, to use WP:N's verbiage) in one such source already in Baird's, the WP:N argument would seem to boil down to it needing more. But WP:N is clear that only generally is more than one source needed, and stresses there isn't some kind of magic number that transmutes an article into notability. In the case of a short-lived fraternity of the nineteenth century, when there were decidedly fewer sources being penned in the first place, it seems reasonable that it's sourced solely from the "bible of fraternities," or at least the question is arguable. That ambivalent status does not begin to reach what I'd view as the standard of proof for deleting the article under WP:N. Moreover, it's eminently fixable: a quick Google search revealed that UPenn's archives have an entry for the fraternity as well: https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-history/fraternities/listing/delta-beta-phi. More sources could no doubt be corralled with a bit more legwork. Why are we in such a rush to wholesale delete this authorship? If there is an argument that it needs further sources to thoroughly confirm its notability beyond cavil, shouldn't the more productive answer be to improve the article to include such sources rather than eradicate it? An overly legalistic approach to parsing Wikipedia's policies can only lead to negative results, when the overarching aim of the project is the collation and dissemination of information. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to put my proverbial money where my mouth is, I've done the beginning of said legwork and added some additional secondary sources from external authors (other fraternal writers and a history) to begin helping to flesh out the article. Hopefully it reflects a sign that we can make this better rather than end the effort. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but everything written here almost sounds like, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I deal with facts. Black and white facts. I have tried the gray area and that can be manipulated to pretty much mean whatever you want once you start giving in. The criteria literally says significant coverage in multiple (not numerical but intellectual) reliable and independent secondary sources. A thousand mentions do not make a subject notable according to the criteria. Twenty articles all saying the same thing and offering nothing intellectually different from the other is only one source according to Wikipedia. Would this discriminate against a lot of topics? Yes. Is that the intention? Maybe. But regardless of whether it is the intention or not, that is the results and until the criteria is changed Wikipedia should be responsible for what it decides to make its policies and editors should be responsible to follow the criteria as it is laid out, otherwise it damages the encyclopedia further because notability becomes a moving target. --ARose Wolf 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ARose Wolf, I hear your reasons for a binary adherence to a principle, and I agree that the reason we have WP:s is to give us the skeleton of how we ought to decide. But WP: does not provide us with a full-fledged legalist common law and precedent with which to apply adjudication, which is why I tend away from a legalistic view of WP: principles. I attempted (and perhaps failed, based on your remarks) to explain in response to the query of Onel5969 how my earlier response was grounded in WP:N principles. I hope I have communicated adequately that I hold deletion based on non-adherence from WP:N or other such principles to a high standard of proof. I respect if you think the evidence meets your own sense of the standard of proof. I would ask if my additions of further sources, detail, and connections to the subject of the article has changed your view, and, if not, what additions of detail and sources that I might research and make that would satisfy your standards -- indeed, an elucidation of your standards for a WP:N compliance article would be most appreciated so I could address, if possible, each. But I do fundamentally disagree with the notion that, simply by virtue of the concept of the subject of an article, it is impossible it might meet WP:N by means of scholarly revision, unless the subject is non-factual or trivial in the first place. As stated in my first post, I see no reason to believe the subject of this article to be either non-factual, nor trivial in the time period in which it was relevant. That its non-triviality or relevancy to many people has declined over time does not seem to be an issue under WP:N principles, as quoted above. At base, I would prefer to improve this article personally than see it deleted, if I can help meet your standards somehow. It seems like improvement should always be the preferred route to deletion, if possible. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizensunshine I do my own extensive research into subjects brought up for AfD or I won't comment on them. I am not saying anything in the article is not factual. I am saying that there simply isn't enough information to tell me that anyone outside of the scope of this organization thinks of it as significant. That in and of itself is not an indicator of notability nor does it preclude it from deserving an article. What does is the only criteria by which every article should be judged for inclusion. That criteria is very discriminatory but is also indifferent to the common bias we as humans tend to base our opinions upon. Out of respect for you I have looked over the sources you have added but I find none of them to be inherently reliable based on Wikipedia's definition nor do I find them to be independent, secondary or intellectually different in all cases. Nothing sourced or unsourced that I have seen causes me to believe this organization is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of it found in WP:N. --ARose Wolf 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - People within the scope of this organization are dead. 150-year old organizations are not common topics in modern, published sources, those that are easily researched. But present sources are not the basis of this article. Writers used century-old citations in yearbooks (reliable, published annually showing a pattern, and publicly available). The Baird's listing didn't just appear in the recent archive, but is a combination of a 109-year old citation when first mentioned, along with analysis of then-contemporaneous yearbooks from multiple schools, each of which is consistent with the other. Tsistunagiska, this is not a vanity listing of a transient, recent topic, which perhaps requires such stringent protection of 300 kilobytes of our precious server space. You have applied a modernistic approach that is unwarranted. The group was notable in the past, and notability doesn't change over time. IF yearbooks, century old magazines, or the many editions of Baird's Manual aren't reliable sources, then you'd toss out all mention of fraternities except those few which are profiled for recent hazing on NPR. Jax MN (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create Wikipedia's guideline for notability. If the guideline leads us to that point then yes, it doesn't belong here under the current criteria. We obviously have a conflict of interests here. I follow Wikipedia's definition of notability, not the definition used 150 years ago. If we continue to circumnavigate bad policy just because we think we should know better then we never know what is wrong with the policies we pass. It's like fixing financial issues to make everything look right and balanced. It's going to come back on us down the line. The only way to do it is adhere to the policy as it is literally stated and then make policy changes that will remove what is bad and replace with some improved language. This subject does not pass the guideline as it is literally stated. --ARose Wolf 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARose Wolf, (I hope I have gotten it right with all the formatting): Perhaps I am too much a neophyte in Wikipedia arbitrations and arguments, but I do not understand how a reference to a "definition used 150 years ago" could adhere to an online encyclopedia begun only twenty years ago that properly respects that many entities or concepts preceding the advent or Wikipedia (or even 150 years ago) might be notable by the standards of their times. Is the Epic of Gilgamesh non-notable because it lacked contemporaraneous secondary citations that survive to this day? If we found some such secondary clay articles, would it make it more or less notable? And given the cited modern commentary cited in the Wiki article on said Epic is largely tertiary source in nature, should we start a campaign to eradicate that article? I think not, with all humility. WP: policies cannot override the I think the proper cite here is to just write a user reference, i.e. Wolf, to alert the party responded to as response.) Our duty is not to follow ambiguously and ambivalently applicable policies written in words on WP: articles; our duty is to encyclopedically preserve all non-trivial demonstrable information that we -- humanity, really -- can collate intelligibly in this wiki format and context. The debate thus far is as to what encyclopedically means with reference to WP:N and (I hope) our general beliefs of what Wikipedia is meant to do. I shan't argue any more on the legalistic or "policy" points as I was asked to at one point, as I respectfully disagree with you there as to whether the factual bases of the article under contention now meet WP:N. But in the end, I would refer back to an axiom (not a policy, law, or any other source of legalistic application) that if we as a community on Wikipedia lack consensus, ought we not preserve knowledge and the resulting prose rather than delete it? Without that premise, why would any try to create an encyclopedic volume of knowledge at all? Citizen Sunshine (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organization is not even a side-note in history, and soley un-NOTABLE. Give it the burial it deserves. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of, what is at best, TRIVIA and TRIVIAL MENTIONS. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's an arbitrary judgment; it was once notable, enough for listing it in several collegiate yearbook and in the foundational reference book of the category. Notability does not diminish over time. It meets the requirements of that same reference book (Baird's required at least three chapters, or some longevity in the case of a "local"), and meets the bar of the Fraternity and Sorority Project editors. Jax MN (talk) 23:39, 24 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 List of international schools in Singapore. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Family School[edit]

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

The only source in the article is the school's own website and I can't find any meaningful, independent English-language coverage of this school. There may be coverage in one of Singapore's other national languages, but I don't think this is notable. It's also clearly promotional and basically amounts to a website mirror, for what it's worth. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more sources than just its website. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cupper52 could you link me to those sources? Best, Blablubbs|talk 21:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: See Overseas Family School#References. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupper52, could you point out the specific reference you're talking about? Because 5 of 6 sources seem to be the school's website, and the sixth doesn't seem to mention the school at all. Blablubbs|talk 22:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be some pretty substantial coverage available online, like this story. The article as written is of course quite inadequate (citing only to the school's website and a site that doesn't reference the school at all), but I don't think the school can be written off as non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what other sources there might be but I just want to point out that that SCMP article is an advertisement, and not an independent source - the byline states it was written by an "advertising partner", which links to a disclaimer that "This content has been created under the direction of an advertiser. It contains no editorial input or review from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), nor does it reflect the position of, or the editorial standards used by, the SCMP. The advertiser has paid for and approved the content." Spicy (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks for catching that: I'm not sure how I missed it. The school's notability is more-or-less borderline, so I'm not going to opine on it. I will note, however, that if the topic is determined to be non-notable, the page should be redirected to List of international schools in Singapore. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spicy: You got in before me! It and the article are written in 'promotional English' may be by the same person? If there were some WP:RS it could be a good topic for an article. Keep on looking but I am not hopeful. ClemRutter (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There aren't really any independent sources on this that I can find on Google. However, NLB's NewspaperSG archive has some articles (mostly from Business Times) on the school. However, the articles are mostly not viewable from home. [22] Eliyr (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eliyr, nice find. Can you say anything about the reliability of the Business Times? One of the titles in there (Elementary school develops rounded, confident, globally-minded citizens) is a little concerning to me. I'm also not sure whether this coverage exceeds WP:ROUTINE, but I think that will be almost impossible to tell without direct access to the sources. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I would consider Business Times to be a reliable source, though I find a bit strange for a financial newspaper to have numerous articles on a school. The independence of Business Times from the school is questionable, considering they have this entirely promotion page for the school on their website [23] despite being a newspaper. Additionally, pretty much all the Business Times articles are from 7 June 2002, so I can't say it is WP:SUSTAINED. Eliyr (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that Business Times had a Overseas Family School REPORT on that day, which would explain the significant coverage. If you view the preview image of this page on the right [24] you can see the header. Eliyr (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a direct link to the image I am referring to [25] Eliyr (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this, Eliyr. Agreed about the independence part – I'm pretty certain this is all native advertising. Blablubbs|talk 13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to not meeting the bar for notability. Since all the sources seem to be advertising masquerading as legitimate articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is rather promotional and has lack of independent sources, hence failing WP:GNG. The only online sources I can find don't appear to be independent and are likely promotional, meaning that the page has little potential to be rewritten to pass GNG. — Eliyr [ talk ] 12:17, 25 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. Since it already exists in draft, it can be worked on there and submitted through AfC if the creator wants to see it returned to mainspace in a less aggressively promotional state. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Patrick[edit]

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

Article about a marketing executive that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article was also created in draft, reviewed as non-notable but creator decided to take it to mainspace. Possible WP:PROMO. Lord Grandwell (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable marketing executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include Brand Innovators, Ad Week, Ad Age, Social Media Week, Campaign Live, Paley Center, and Business Insider. Subject has been one of the top female marketing executives across numerous high-profile brands and many of the sources are directly about the subject at hand.Jakeswish (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actively adding more references to the page that showcase why Kristin Patrick is a top marketing executive and these sources include feature articles, interviews, and specific focus on her role as a marketing executive at numerous notable corporate brands.Jakeswish (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakeswish: While the subject may be objectively notable, the article's corporate jargon-heavy prose and fluffy references aren't helping the cause. Association with the biggest names in industry, marketing, etc. does not establish wiki notability. Lists of top 40 movers and shakers don't do either. Objective, not-trivial coverage of this person and her accomplishments by reliable secondary sources would help. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The author has not yet answered whether they are being paid by Kristin Patrick or by her employer, Eros Innovations, or whether they have any other conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as not satisfying general notability, pending possible disclosure by the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the draftify guidelines, as the creator has just admitted that they have a COI. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per draftify guidelines.Globaleditor23 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Draft article already exists at Draft:Kristin Patrick and it predates this page by the same creator. The fate of the draft awaits what happens here. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Gene93k states correctly that: "The fate of the draft awaits what happens here."
- - Drafts can be speedily deleted as G11, G3, or otherwise. The draft does not need speedy deletion.
  - Drafts can be deleted at MFD. The draft has not been nominated for deletion.
  - If a title is salted in article space, a draft becomes stillborn. There is no need to salt this title, only to delete the article.
  - The draft should be left alone, and may expire, unless the subject becomes newly notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article about a non-notable marketing executive. MER-C 14:58, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster Bates (drink)[edit]

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

No explanation why this drink is notable, or even if it exists. Since its creation in 2007, the article has consisted only of a recipe and has been pretty much completely unsourced. Already twice deleted via PROD in 2006. This should finally be deleted. JIP | Talk 11:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can find sources to suggest that it exists but none of them look like RS to me. I'm not sure if maybe there is some decent coverage offline somewhere? [26] [27] [28] Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source isn't even consistent with the two others, it claims the drink is alcoholic. JIP | Talk 12:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources are terrible. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be moved to Wikitext or wherever they store cookbooks in the larger Wiki universe. Nothing of note to be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a singular source from Oshkosh Northwestern with the listed name and ingredients.[29] It doesn't seem to be particiularly notable but I'm unsure how it has gone from Cheshire to Wisconsin if that is a correct statement in the article. FozzieHey (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; didn't find good sources either. ~EdGl talk 21:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable; a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to support its notability. Luciapop (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SIGCOV. That's all. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 26 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 Textual variants in the New Testament. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of major textual variants in the New Testament[edit]

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

The article has ben without any source for 10 years. There was a previous merge proposal, but it was rejected. No one has come to add any source in 10 years, so I think it is time we get rid of this totally unsourced OR. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources being compared (the King James Version and New American Standard Bible, 1995 edition) are the references. They are all freely available online and so WP:CALC applies. If nom demands references, something like https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A44&version=KJV,AKJV,NASB1995,NASB,THGNT could be added as a reference for each verse listed. The main difference between this article and textual variants in the New Testament is that the latter compares various passes in Greek and this compares commonly used English-language translations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: How are we to know which bible the user used and for what? And how does the user know that each times the Majority text is the same as the TR? How does he/she know the KJV always follows the TR, and that the recent bibles he/she presents always follow the Nestle-Aland (apparently, some do not)? Veverve (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The article clearly states "The following list contains texts where the Majority Text is in agreement with the Textus Receptus, against the critical text.

"MT = Majority Text. (English text from New King James Version ) CT = Critical text (English text from New American Standard Bible )". That's a good point. Biblical scholars know that the KJV used Texus Receptus, which is an unreliable source document. That should be detailed in the article.

However, you did not address the question. A side-by-side comparison of the two could be added as sources and lack of sources was your major argument for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: how does the user know when the TR and the MT are in agreement everytimes he/she quotes from the "MT/TR", and that moreover the KJV is strictly following the TR and is not paraphrasing, nor relying on the Vulgate nor on manuscripts which were not used in the TR? And that is assuming that it is the 5th editions of Erasmus's text by which the user meant the TR. As for what "modern critical text" refers to, nobody knows (Wescort-Hort or N-A, or a synthesis of both? something else?).

There would be no point in simply manually comparing two bibles on Wikipedia, as some softwares can do it. Besides, the choice of whether or not to consider differences in a passage as "major" is subjective (i.e. it needs to be considered so by a RS). To me, this article reads more like a blog post than a WP article. Veverve (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some softwares? That is an odd grammatical construct. Your argument has now changed, but yes, there would be a value because the different translations would make a comparison like this virtually impossible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Textual variants in the New Testament which seems to be same topic done better. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew. We do not need two articles covering the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Textual variants in the New Testament is from Greek manuscripts, List of major textual variants in the New Testament is English translations - merging would make the article too long - perhaps the titles need to be changed to reflect the sources, such as "Textual variants in Greek New Testament manuscripts" (too long?) and "Textual variants in New Testament English translations" - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many translations of the Bible in English – see List of English Bible translations. The point here is differences in text in the original Greek and so that's the more sensible approach. Of course, we should also give English translations of those Greek texts for readers who don't understand Greek but they are best presented alongside the Greek so that the details of the translation can be verified. What we should avoid is giving the impression that the Bible was written in English when it wasn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Görlitz and Epinoia. St Anselm (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: you say that determining whether a variant is "major" is a routine WP:CALC but the article lead does not explain the formula for determining whether a variant is major or minor. Can you add an explanation of how "major" variants are distinguished to the article lead? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wbm1058: I have not been the primary maintainer and only watch for vandalism and correcting formatting. From what I see, it is when a passage in a TR-based translation lists much more or less content than a translation based on more scholarly sources (Novum Testamentum Graece) do or relegate the additions to footnotes. A simple reading of the passages shows the variations, and the extent of them, well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, and in addition: whole college humanities courses are based on literature of the Bible, which lacks an exact article, and this list will be of much use to our core readership, students. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject for theology, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both this and Textual variants in the New Testament. The variations between the various texts used is a very important topic.

The latter is technically the better, but will be incomprehensible to most readers as it requires a working knowledge of NT Greek, which I happen to have, but most readers will not. The present article is tagged as lacking references. This is almost certainly WRONG. The references are no doubt what is labelled as "Further Reading", but it would be better if sources were given for editions of CT, TR and MT. This is a case where it is highly undesirable for every line to have an in-line reference, which would clutter the article appallingly. The references are actually present, in citing the three texts compared. It would be useful if the article stated which translated text was in fact quoted, but that is a minor issue since the versions are mentioned in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and notes: Consensus to ingore all the "rules" can pass with local !votes but the requirements of sourcing to provide evidence that there is actually not original research or synthesis has failed to materialize since 2017. Being "a very important topic" means there should be sources. Needing or being required to have a "working knowledge of NT Greek" is a reason we don't have "incomprehensible" content on an encyclopedia. Wording like "comparison like this virtually impossible" is equaling troublesome.

Textual criticism of the New Testament certainly seems to be an important subject and articles like Textual variants in the Gospel of Luke at least provide sources to show the information is covered not just on Wikipedia. If this is not a creation of imagination then some of the great minds attached to this subject should be able to provide sources and inline citations that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. Even if a closer should agree that there is valuable information and the above "voting", that currently flies in the in the face of policies and guidelines, a "keep" closing would be against the more broadly accepted community consensus.

At present none of the "keep" !votes provide evidence to justify allowing the article to remain per the deletion "policy" #6, #7, or #8. Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a Bibical guidebook and "IF" this is "a notable subject for theology" then where are the sources? Please note: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far largely ignores the WP:OR issues with this content, such as who gets to decide what counts as a "major" variant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I hate these well-written but unsourced articles. Can we move this to a subsection in a New Testament article? Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The two topics are fairly related. Most of the differences that are more than just minor word choice stem from textual variants in the Greek itself. So since the English variants generally stem from the Greek, it's probably best to house both topic in the same place, possibly as a table. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of sources discussing the major variants in the Greek; I've got a Bruce M. Metzger book at home that lists some of these. From what I've seen, the sources that focus on the variants focus on the Greek end of it, so "major" variants will have to be determined on the Greek end. Hog Farm _Talk 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: @Oaktree b: could you tackle the OR of the article? Also, where do you want this fully unsourced article to be merged? Veverve (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's not wholly unsourced, but it is a mess of WP:OR (who defines major in the English translations, and there's even some where there's not a difference [ei both omit the verse]). The translations themselves should be consistent against the NKJY or NASB, if you can figure out which revision of the NASB and NKJV was used. I'd like to see this best as a table, with the Greek translations provided in one column, with the English translations and a source. {{Bibleverse}} would be useful in working on this. I'm not good enough with tables to pull that off, though. I don't have the time to do the transfer over work to the Textual variants in the New Testament article, but I'd be willing to help sort out OR and help actually cite it after the transfer. I currently attend a Baptist university, so I've got access to some sources in addition to the handful I personally own. And you don't have to worry about OR from me, as I don't read Koine Greek! Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge well written but still WP:OR to its core. I hope that there is a way to WP:PRESERVE this because the WP:OR is somewhat plain and obvious with minimal interpretation. Maybe there is hope of salvaging this as part of a bigger and better article. Textual variants in the New Testament is on a better track. It still needs work though. Archrogue (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Andrew. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There's really no good policy-based option so I'm suggesting draftifying as he least bad policy-based option. The Keep and Merge opinions are both partly correct: this is a notable topic and there is scholarly work on the topic but this article is hopelessly WP:OR and therefore fails to follow the core content policies. If it is moved to Draft space, there is at least a chance that an article on a notable topic can be reworked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Textual variants in the Gospel of Matthew, Textual variants in the Gospel of Mark, etc. Textual variants in the New Testament is too large and messy; a lot of that article's content needs to be trimmed because it's covered in these per-book articles. ~EdGl talk 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Textual variants in the New Testament per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my Keep vote above. The fact that there are significant variations is apparent from the footnotes in many Bibles. Those Bible translations are cited as Further Reading. This is therefore NOT original research. The differences are the result of differing textual transitions in surviving manuscripts and are given in full in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. I do know enough Greek to understand the text in Greek and have occasionally consulted such a critical edition, though I do not own one. This is quite different from a comparison of how different translators have turned the Greek into English. We have two articles: one has a lot of Greek in it and will only be comprehensible to those who know the language. The other is in English. The test is NOT whether an article has full in-line references (verified), but whether it is verifiable, which I believe this to be. There are many much worse articles in WP. In relisting criteria #6, #7 and #8 are cited, but none of these is any more relevant than that of whether BLP arises. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Tiwari[edit]

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

Lacks strong sources enough to qualify WP:GNG. There is only a passing mention in the sole reliable source. The other "sources" are just his author profile on various newspaper. This article doesn't qualify : https://www.firstpost.com/living/9-months-indias-youngest-single-dad-aditya-tiwari-on-what-it-takes-to-raise-a-child-with-down-syndrome-4509417.html , apparently talks about a different now-30 year old man also named "Aditya Tiwari", and is written by our Afd Subject Aditya Tiwari.Daiyusha (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daiyusha: This is a wrong URL. Please, check out this link on Firstpost written by the poet and activist in the article. Thank you.--Igallards7 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The publications that are referenced, are columns in the press media of well-known notoriety in India, which are witten by bloggers and selected by the press team, so not everyone can publish over there. Additionally, he has relative coverage in the media as an LGBT activist and as poet.--Igallards7 (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G11 and A7. Spam and promotional article. Firstpost article written by him not about him. RationalPuff (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article. Too much of the sourcing is by the article subject. Articles are supposed to be built on independent sources, which means by someone other than the subject.
Delete. Notability, for a writer, is determined not by what they write but by what others write about them. Ifnord (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved to encyclopedic standards. References seem to provide independent and sufficient sources on his work. BlueEmeralds (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a SPA created minutes before just to add this vote. Potentially a sock. RationalPuff (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Igallards7 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies)
Delete It is a spam and promotional article.VocalIndia (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject with only passing mentions. Luciapop (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Sourced content can be merged from history. There is consensus to not keep this article, but not consensus to either delete or merge, so redirect is a compromise that allows editors to work out what if any content is worth keeping. Sandstein 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale which is still relevant half a year later: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). So let's discuss... can anyone see anything salvageable in this article (de facto a badly written disambig to several characters of that name, sigh)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in detail in sources such as Coming Soon and 500 Comicbook Villains. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The first is a listicle plot summary which have been judged unreliable at RSN (discussion), and the second is the same but in print format. But, if you really have access to that book, please quote here any coverage of Bombshell that goes beyond a plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew - how are any of those two sources you presented reliable? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - short paragraph blurbs in niche publications are hardly "covered in detail". Or perhaps if you can seriously cover something in detail in a paragraph, that shows how truly non-notable it is. Searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a clear lack of the level of secondary coverage that would be needed to show notability. The comics themselves are primary, and Wikipedia is supposed to build on secondary not primary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate character list as an ATD. And for the thousandth time, nom, PRODs can be removed for any reason. Stop insisting people owe you a policy explanation. It's extremely evident that deletions like these will be controversial, so just cut out the middleman and take them to AFD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs of such low-quality topics are intended to save us time. There is nothing to merge here at all - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough for a short entry on the characters in an appropriate list article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death-Throws. Based on the existing article, the character never did anything noteworthy outside of this team, and she has an entry under the "members" section. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Andrew failed to answer my (mostly rhetorical nevertheless) question. Passing coverage in few low-quality sources fails to establish how this may pass WP:GNG - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, were you basically baiting Andrew with your comment? Haleth (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much as you are trying to bait me here, I think - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per John Pack Lambert. A clear lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Most of the search results only provide bare mentions and I suppose you could twist my arm into a merge if someone wants to build a small sourced section first. But expanding the main article makes more sense, since there is nothing in the current article to merge. Jontesta (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. I suggest SOFTDELETE by redirecting to List of Marvel Comics characters: B and copying the lead of the article there rather than a hard delete. I can copy the lead if I am pinged a redirect has been made and the lead is still visible in history for non-admins. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: B per Boz. Death-Throws is not an ideal candidate as it isn't currently well cited with secondary sources and may face the possibility of deletion at AfD. I don't think SOFTDELETE applies per Wikipedia policy since there is no evidence of minimal participation in this discussion. The nominator has to account for the possibility of the article being deleted as per the majority consensus, or withdraw the AfD nomination if he changes his mind about calling for the article to be deleted and start a merge proposal instead. Haleth (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. Outside of the Earth-616 version, both Earth-1610 characters are supporting characters of Miles Morales. Where else will the latter versions have their information placed? Plus, I agree with the claims of @Andrew Davidson: and @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B per WP:ATD-M. No reason why a short, concise summary of the character shouldn't appear there, given some sourcing does exist. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:59, 30 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 Yo-Yo Ma discography. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-Yo Ma Plays the Music of John Williams[edit]

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

A WP:ROTM classical recording which fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finzi: Cello Concerto, Clarinet Concerto for fuller arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yo-Yo Ma discography - I'm not finding anything in the way of reviews or coverage on this album. However, as a reasonable redirect target exists, and it is already listed there, Redirecting to the discography article for Yo-Yo Ma seems like a reasonable solution. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(nom) Redirect per Rorshacma. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and keep the categories. Narky Blert (talk) 16:18, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mary Francine Whittle[edit]

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

While this looks as if she should be notable, I have failed in finding any indepth sources about her. Her name is often simply rendered as Chris Whittle, but there are others with the same name who are more notable, which makes searching harder. Her full name only gives Wikipedia mirrors as results[30]. The sources given in the article are very brief mentions, and nothing better seems to be available.

So it looks as if she fails WP:BIO and WP:COMPOSER. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just rechecked all the sources today (1/21/21) and they very specifically mention "Chris Mary Francine Whittle." I wrote the article because she is on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_dictionary/International_encyclopedia_of_women_composers. The whole point of this project is to educate people about female composers and their works, hopefully so more of their music will be played. Deleting the article returns them to obscurity. T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six months ago I would have vigorously fought for this article's retention. I've learned a lot since then. Wikipedia is not perfect. Its policies and guidelines are mostly situational and highly discriminatory but simple. The criteria is plainly written. The subject must receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources to be notable, period. The same basic story written in several sources, albeit reliable, does not constitute multiple. I may disagree with the guideline. I would probably be the first to vote to alter it but it is what we have and the only criteria we are instructed to follow for AfD's. The subject fails WP:N after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search using different renditions of her name. I struggled with !voting to delete and it pains me to do it but I agree with the nominator on Wikipedia principle, not my own. I want that noted. --ARose Wolf 14:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly any newspapers reviewing her performances or compositions are in the black hole between British Library Newspapers which goes up to 1950 and NewsBank which goes back up to 25 years. There are likely to be umpteen press articles out there. But she's not in Grove (could be under-representation of women being perpetuated). She has been included in two biographical dictionaries of women composers, which goes some way towards notability. I fear that we may have to wait for an obituary for more reliably-sourced information about this person. PamD 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go with WP:GNG here, with reference to the two encyclopedia entries. GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". "Significant coverage" and "detail" should not be confused with length. Brief encyclopedia refs satisfy the criterion. The two encyclopedia refs addresses the topic directly Y in sufficient detail that 'no original research is needed to extract the content'. Y One does not get put in a paper encyclopedia b/c one is not notable. One does not get put in two paper encyclopedia's, ditto. Further, it is inconceivable that someone who toured for 20 years and was besides a composer, did not amass press to which we have no access. THe purpose of this encyclopedia is to inform. This article usefull informs us of her life and work, and, provides information on the composer for users who come across any of her compositions - which are still sold today and thus likely to be of some current interest. A user on the Boosey & Hawkes Sheet Music Shop (ref 7) is well within their rights when coming across Intermezzi, opus 32, to wish to be able to find out more about its composer. Finally I note that a composer having opus numbers is again an indicator that she has been found notable enough for someone to catalogue and index her work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Playing devils advocate for a moment, while I agree that "significant coverage" does not necessarily equate to length of the sources content, the criteria also states that generally it is expected there be multiple sources. In reading the notes, multiple does not simply mean numerically but intellectually, meaning, multiple numerical sources repeating the same information or close to the same information are not multiple sources intellectually and therefore can not be considered a means to judge notability minus other intellectually different sources even if said sources are reliable, are secondary and do offer "significant coverage". They would all be considered one source. That's why lists and other encyclopedia's are so difficult to use for notability confirmation within Wikipedia. Multiple lists and encyclopedia entries tend to say the same information. --ARose Wolf 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first one isn't really an encyclopedia, but a biobibliography with extremely short entries, and doesn't even get her name right[31]. Which only leaves the second one as a decent source[32]. Wrt opus numbers, any evidence that this isn't simply how she titles her own works? Fram (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria #3 of WP:ANYBIO, as she has an entry in a Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication, per her inclusion in the International encyclopedia of women composers. To my mind, this and the other encyclopedia is enough to indicate notability. Some of the sourcing in the article could be trimmed, such as the "Boosey" link to purchase sheet music. The article may always exist as a stub, but there is nothing wrong with that. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per PamD, we really need evidence of performances and ideally recordings, or other coverage. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not surprisingly, newspaper reports from this period are not accessible on the internet but from the information and sources already included in the article, this is a recognized composer.--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree with above Keep arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going with keep, as in the International encyclopedia of women composers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has an entry in Flavie Roquet, Lexicon: Vlaamse componisten geboren na 1800 (Roeselare, Roularta Books, 2007, 946p, ISBN 978-90-8679-090-6). I have never seen this book, but in a description I found "Each composer is given a two-part lemma in the Lexicon: the biographical details are followed by a description of the compositions and often a stylistic-aesthetic estimate. After the actual biography, the bibliography (where the information was found) follows so that further searches can be made later." Davidships (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography so it meets the 3rd criteria of ANYBIO. Empire AS ^Talk!
- {{ping|Empire AS}} I don't she has an entry in any "dictionary of national biography"? Not asking you to change your "keep", as it seems that further searches by others have found more sources (not a lot, but enough), but your reasoning seems wrong (unless I missed something). Fram (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Empire AS: ping gone wrong. Fram (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, The 3rd criteria of WP:ANYBIO says The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. She was included in the International encyclopedia of women composers (a similar publication). Moreover, she has an entry in Flavie Roquet, Lexicon: Vlaamse componisten geboren na 1800 (Roeselare, Roularta Books, 2007, 946p, ISBN 978-90-8679-090-6). Your reply was a bit confusing to me especially the lines I don't she has an entry in any "dictionary of national biography"?, something seemed to be wrong. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she has an entry in a "similar" publication (though a highly specialized one). Most countries have one or two "dictionaries of national biography" where having an entry is considered to be highly significant (although some of these dictionaries are more based on the personal obscure interests of a few contributors than on actual importance it seems, but I digress). Whittle is not included in any "dictionary of national biography" though (as far as anyone has found), and claiming that she has been is very confusing. Being included in a specialized, not general national, biographical dictionary may or may not be enough to pass ANYBIO: this depends on the actual work the subject is in (is it some high quality work, is the entry somewhat substantial, ...). In this case, it probably is sufficient, as she is in more than one such work. But none of these works is a "dictionary of national biography" and shouldn't be labeled as such. Fram (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Inclusion in a national encyclopedia or equivalent is sufficient for any body. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 26 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:CSK#1, the nomination has been withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi's Cello[edit]

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

A WP:ROTM classical recording which fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finzi: Cello Concerto, Clarinet Concerto for fuller arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [33], [34] and [35]. It's briefly talked about in these sources: [36] and [37]. It also had an entry on the Billboard 200. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: Add them to the article, and we should be good to go per WP:HEY. Narky Blert (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. The Billboard 200 entry definitely satisfies WP:NALBUM. Noahfgodard (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is well sourced and passes WP:NALBUM. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(nom) Withdraw/keep per WP:HEY. Narky Blert (talk) 09:05, 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 delete. Sandstein 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven Sonatas, Volume 2, No. 3, Op. 69; No. 5 Op. 102, No. 2[edit]

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

A WP:ROTM classical recording which fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finzi: Cello Concerto, Clarinet Concerto for fuller arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete:
Delete per reasons above. Couldn't find anything either.-PastramiSandwich4456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastramiSandwich4456 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 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. Will salt. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abibakr As-Sidiq Philanthropic Home[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a charitable organisation in Nigeria. The sources are to affiliated sites, or press statements, and a directory. The coverage in Al-Anbā is the only in depth third party coverage, but it’s by a friend of the founder. An online search only shows the same sources or similar and no further in depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — This article again??? Oh well, I agree with nom, WP:NGO isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - failed WP:NORG back in 2020 and fails NORG now Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:SPAM, WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT. In 2008, putting up a page to your favorite local charity was excused, but not in 2021. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 26 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 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team Rescue Iloilo[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not yield any significant coverage. This appears to be, at least primarily, a non-notable Facebook group. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NORG being met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have to agree with Spiderone's assessment. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about a recently formed organization that is certainly not notable as of now. I respect their ideology, but they have just been formed last year, and I couldn't find anything about them besides their own site, their fb, twitter and instagram pages, and a short news piece where they are trivially mentioned (I don't speak Filipino so I don't know what it's about, but most likely animal rescue). Good luck to them, and I am certain they will accomplish notability in the near future, but as of now, they have to go. Sorry. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the group. Article looks WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 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. ~ mazca ^talk 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finzi: Cello Concerto, Clarinet Concerto[edit]

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

A WP:ROTM classical recording, like tens of thousands of others. We don't have an article on Solti's recording of Wagner's Ring cycle; the first volume of which outsold Elvis, which has been twice voted the greatest classical recording of all time, and about which the recording engineer John Culshaw wrote a (highly readable) book, Ring Resounding (Georg Solti#Recordings, John Culshaw#Stereo and the Decca Ring) - and in my opinion, we should not. Nor do we have an article about Enrico Caruso's recordings of "Vesti la giubba", the first classical million-seller. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG – no significant coverage in reliable independent sources – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 18:07, 31 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 Foxtrot (company). I don't believe the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valerii Makovetskyi[edit]

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

BLP of a Ukrainian businessman. The sources in the article are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage. A search in Cyrillic doesn’t bring up anything better. The only potential claim of notability I can see is the conferral of the Order of St. Equal to Apostles Prince Vladimir, 3rd Class, but that doesn’t sound like enough on its own. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article (although an attempt has been made to make it less so), but there is not the enough of the type of the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Mccapra and Onel5969: This publication in Ukrainian by one of the leading independent publishers Interfax-Ukraine demonstrates the in-depth coverage of Makovetskyi's personality. This businessman has founded, owns and manages the 3rd biggest retail chain in Ukraine. --Perohanych (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well that piece is marked at the bottom as advertising and it is clearly a profile supplied by the subject and not an independent piece of writing. Mccapra (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, @Mccapra:, I do not see any mark of advertising. Please let me know the exact text of the advertising mark. I would not say that the profile was supplied by the subject and not by independent journalists. --Perohanych (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- At the bottom of the page it says “РЕКЛАМА”. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear @Mccapra:, This Word “РЕКЛАМА” is presented several times on this page. But none of them has anything to do with information about Makovetskyi. All these are third-party advertising blocks of other products and services that are not related to Makovetskyi. --Perohanych (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK thanks for explaining that and sorry if I misunderstood. However, I think it is pretty clear that the content of the article is basically a LinkedIn-type profile which is pretty certainly just provided by the subject. Let's suppose I am wrong - even so this single source is not sufficient to support a stand-along biography on Wikipedia. I'll leave it to other editors now to take a look and see what they think. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there are also many interviews with him, including
        https://nachasi.com/2020/09/09/quarantine-challenge-business/
        
        https://ua-news.liga.net/all/pr/valeriy-makovetskiy-3-poradi-biznesmenam-pochatkivtsyam
        
        https://rivnepost.rv.ua/news/valjer-j-makovjeckij-usp-kh-fokstrot-sv-domo-vibuduvana-zakonom-rn-st --Perohanych (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foxtrot (company) where Valerii Makovetskyi is mentioned, so there is a target – interviews are not reliable independent sources per WP:INTERVIEW – does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a redirect makes sense. Mccapra (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have gone through the article, although very less references are available but the subject seems to be holding strong position to stay on Wikipedia, I have checked the Foxtrot company page and news sources that are available on the article page as well as on internet. The subject has been featured in sources that talk about his company, those reputable sources have accepted subject's information so I believe the subject is good to go for this article. I have also checked these sources ^[1] and also this ^[2] Syoz (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Syoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I think it is a delete based on WP:BASIC..."People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I've reviewed all the sources above by Syoz and Perohanych and really saw no independent sources IMHO. All the sources are profiling of the subject of the article or his business. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Vilasnath Maharaj[edit]

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

Non-notable religious personality. Google returns nothing remotely usable in English (string:"Yogi Vilasnath Maharaj"); if there are any usable sources it's more likely to be in the Subcontinental languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable priest/clergy. Fails WP:BIO as the subject lacks coverage in reliable third party media. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and completely unsourced. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC RationalPuff (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Akronowner (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability criteria. Waggie (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, lack of WP:SIGCOV, and our standards for religious leaders. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLERGY says absolutely nothing about Hinduist yogis, or really anyone that isn't part of an Abrahamic religion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:22, 26 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. There's suggestion that there might be some sources, but an overall consensus that at this time there is insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alp Akar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR. The article does not have sources showing WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. Sources in the article are promos, "fast facts" style articles, and a Youtube channel. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. This just might be WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I found 2 reliable sources that give some information about him because he plays a character in Sadakatsiz (article needs to be updated if kept): [38], [39], a source about him getting an award, another source that is about the characters of Bizim Hikaye where there is also some information on him is given and a source that talks about him having fun inbetween filming. I’m not surprised you weren't able to find them since it required a lot of digging which is quite strange. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 21:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete per WP:NOT YET (actors) he does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR. The awards mentioned in the comments above is just a nomination. He did not actually win it. Not yet notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 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. Consensus is that the character is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline (Nintendo character)[edit]

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

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

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

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

From what I can tell, this article shouldn't have been approved through AfC and fails WP:GNG. Its reception section is very thin and doesn't provide context for why the character is notable. It's mostly about the song, which is not the character (and would probably be better off on the page of Kate Higgins instead). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the reception section is confusingly about some song instead of the character. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) PS. New sources seem to suggest notability, withdrawing my delete vote. But the article should be tagged with {{notability}} unless the reception section is improved with the sources found here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello, I'm the creator of the draft and no this shouldn't have passed AfC. I created it with the intention of completing it, however I had a problem with finding references. Unless some one can find good sources on Pauline, I think it should be deleted. Captain Galaxy 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Donkey Kong Characters. Character is covered in sufficient detail there, and is a reasonable enough search term to make it worth keeping some information. I had a look at the sources present, but they seem insufficient (from the excerpts available online) to make a full article. If anyone has access to the relevant books, feel free to say how much they contain. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to List of Donkey Kong Characters#Pauline. Keep per additional sourcing provided by Trekker. A few are of dubious quality but the remainder is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Coverage about the song can be done under the reception section for Super Mario Odyssey, if it isn't there already. Haleth (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ - not independently notable from the games. Over half of the (weak) reception section is about the song "Jump Up Superstar" rather than the subject, and probably belongs at Kate Higgins or Super Mario Odyssey. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my original "redirect" stance since sources were eventually found, but still can't advocate "keep" in this sorry state. It needs to be put into a draft until someone can write an encyclopedic article with reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but retool reception - several sources that are about the character of Pauline, reception section definitely needs a rework, but it seems fixable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retool it with what though? It's easy to go and say "make it better" but you've got to illustrate an actual path forward if you want to provide a valid/persuasive keep argument. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, I think sources have been found, see Trekker's and mine posts below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's apparent now, but at the time of writing that response, no one, including the editor I was responding to, had presented any valid sourcing yet. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Redirect - As the AFC reviewer of the draft. If the creator of the draft intended to withdraw it from review, then it can be cut down to a redirect again (which is what it was before it was reviewed.

Comment - It seems that my signature to the above disappeared. Striking it anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per above. Akronowner (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is everyone so keyed into the reception section? Yes, that is the easiest way to show notability, but there are other real-world aspects to fictional elements like their creation. I think the best piece towards GNG is currently the Polygon article, which isn't in the reception. That said, I have no strong feelings on a standalone article vice list entry. There is significant real-world content to merge, though. -2pou (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you really answered your own question here - it's the easiest (but not required) way to demonstrate notability through Wikipedia's notability standards and we're falling short on the number of sources needed to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE in particular states that a fictional item must not be totally in-universe. Beyond the simple GNG fail, there is also the issue of it lacking context in terms of critical reception of the character._{ZX°CVBNM (TALK)} 04:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of over 40 years of history and more notable than princess Peach as she made the concept of having a character to rescue notable in the first place. I am ashamed deletíonists are still destroying cultural histories on Wikipedia's anniversary year. 213.205.198.237 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)— 213.205.198.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stances that don't cite any valid policy are generally disregarded or given far less weight in the final decision, for the record. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More notable than Peach ? Not at all. But if I understand right, the issue here is that we do not have enough infos in “Reception”. Instead of deleting the page, it would be much better to add more elements ? I mean deleting the page sounds like abandoning a car because it’s out of fuel, it does not make sense. Just make some research and add more infos. The song seems fine to me since it’s part of the “Legacy” of the character. Some pages have less elements and are being published... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.25.100 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — 86.220.25.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Has coverage in reliable sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treker, Hmmm. Not bad. There are few sentences in academic source (thesis 'Beyond princess peach: Gender issues and the boy's club hegemony of video game development' that are somewhat analytical if brief/in passing). This passing mention [40] can be used to call their romance a classic of video games, I guess. And this academic work (as well as this) mentions the hack that some of your sources discuss about making her playable. There are a lot of passing mentions, dozens, and I don't have time to check which may contain significant analysis that the snippets didn't show. Overall I think there is enough about her from the feminist-style discourse to argue she is notable. I'll adjust move vote accordingly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trekker has found reliable sources giving significant coverage to this character. Dream Focus 15:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the coverage from sources found by Trekker. Enjoyer — talk 12:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current article status is weeaaaaak but the sources mentioned above could make something decent. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I almost wonder if sending it back to draftspace again is a good compromise. Some of these sources are helpful, but the current status is awful. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Things are far more likely to be improved in main space than draft space. Dream Focus 16:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a valid argument that against deletion, not draftifying. And it's about a recently-become-popular Mario character, not something obscure. A note to WP:VG would likely drum up interest. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I rarely see topics get more attention in drafts space than in mainspace. I feel like there is a large risk that if Wikipedia starts making it a habit of draftifying clearly notable topics because the articles are sub par then we risk losing edit histories if the drafts get deleted due to lack of interest.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Trekker. If I didn't submit an abandoned draft, this article wouldn't exist. 49.151.185.63 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason we've had those long, drawn out discussion is because this was submitted too soon. Despite the difference in opinions on how to handle this, just about everyone concedes this is undercooked... Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, Indeed. After reviewing the sources, I think it is notable, but the current version is low level WP:FANCRUFT. The notability significantly rests on the discourse of her as a 'damsel in distress' trope and the criticism/attempts to overcome it, which the submitted draft totally missed, focusing as usual on the fancrufty 'fictional biography/list of appearances in games'. Wikipedia =/= fandom wikia. We need to show how the topic matters outside the game world. Well, I hope the creator learned that lesson, will fix this and will continue to submit better pieces. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that an emergent consensus is forming in this discussion for the article to be kept, and also to improve this article as soon as possible. The article creator @Captain Galaxy: said they wanted to finish the article but couldn't find the sources. Now that Trekker has helped locate the sources, rewriting aspects of the article to better comply with the MOS for a video game article shouldn't be an issue now. I'd like to know if Captain Galaxy is still interested in fine tuning the article's contents with the new sources to address quality concerns; if not, I don't mind putting myself forward and improve in mainspace instead of having it sent it back to draft space. It won't take long. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: I did as much as I felt I could with the sources, you're welcome to add the remaining sources brought up in this afd. If need, the sources can be found on Talk:Pauline (Nintendo character). Captain Galaxy 22:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as the AFC acceptor. I respectfully disagree with User:Sergecross73 in that I think that sending this back to draft space is very much the wrong answer. Either Keep or Merge. Sending it back to draft space will be a message that we, the AFD community, don't have a clue. (We probably don't have a collective clue, being an assembly of clueful editors who disagree, but we don't need to send a message to that effect.)
- - This was the first female character and first damsel in distress in the collection of Nintendo game characters. That is reason enough for an article.
  - Sometimes we, the AFD community, get hung up on details with regard to when to keep and when to delete sub-articles.
  - The WP:Pokémon Test applies, but I am not sure what its application is.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I tweaked your post to include the WP namespace. Hope you don't mind. Additionally, I'm not sure if you remember !voting before, but you should strike one of them.
Side comment: I think this AfD has shown that your AfC accept was fine. Whether the article is kept or redirected, the back and forth discussion clearly shows that it met AfC's directive of having a 50% chance of survival at AfD. It was passed through to a more flushed out decision that comes from the group of people vice a single AfC reviewer. -2pou (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I only commented earlier, but given the potential sources presented, enough clearly WP:NEXIST to show notability. Given that GNG has been demonstrated, improvements to the article should be left in the main space where more editors can actually have eyes on it as opposed to pretty much only the AfD participants here knowing about the draft, most of whom will forget about it and move on to the next discussion. Wikipedia is a WP:WIP after all. I'm pretty sure someone had an essay about improving things in main space to this effect, but I can't recall. If anyone does, please ping me with it for my recollection. -- 2pou (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing provided above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:58, 28 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) Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaki Nami Reproduct Best[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NALBUM ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Just found it on the Oricon charts: [41]. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:04, 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 Greater Houston. Consensus is not to keep this. The ambiguity with respect to Louisiana, if it exists, will need to be resolved editorially (e.g., by a hatnote, a dab page or a mention in the target article). Sandstein 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Bayou[edit]

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

Multiple issues. First, the article as-written is promotional. Second, the entire content is a content-fork of Economy of Houston/List of companies in Houston. Third, the term "Silicon Bayou" more commonly refers to the tech industry in Louisiana, so Economy of Houston is not a plausible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was created only a day ago and fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTABLE.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't fail WP:GNG, as it's listing notable events. The only thing the article misses is references to names that trace back to the article's name at hand. This can easily be added, as this term is common. As mentioned above, the term Silicon Bayou also commonly refers to Louisiana. This, however, doesn't warrant deletion either. New Orleans/Louisiana can be added in a similar way that Silicon Prairie reflects on both Chicagoland and Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greater Houston. There are exceptions (such as Big Apple) but generally, city/region nicknames such as Motor City just direct to the location they describe. You could obviously create a Motor City article if you wanted to, there are plenty of sources. But, there is nothing gained by having a separate article. This article is simply describing an aspect of Houston. That is, it is describing the tech industry in the region as opposed to discussing the independent significance of the nickname. The section on the Texas Medical Center simply says what the TMC is. It's well intentioned but it should be redirected. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When you search for information, it appears it applies to both Houston and New Orleans. Based on this, it should be treated like the Silicon Prairie article with both, or deleted. Redoryxx (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Redoryxx. We should mention New Orleans in the article as well, as New Orleans is also associated with the term, as is Houston. ParaguaneroSwag (talk) 3:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - consensus is to keep the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TWA Flight 742[edit]

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

Minor accident (1 dead). Only reliable WP:NOTNEWS source is a primary , source, the National Transportation Safety Board, which routinely (though thoroughly) researches every accident. Fram (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom - and yes, that's correct. Minor accident (1 dead). Per consensus any scheduled airline flight that involves a passenger fatality is notable. WP:NOTNEWS means "Wikipedia does not include things that are routine news" (which this is absolutely not), not the implied "Wikipedia does not cite the news". It would be nice to have better sourcing (and I would not count the NTSB as a "primary source"; it did not cause the accident, and I would very much dismiss the statement that aircraft accidents are somehow "routine"), but we have multiple reliable sources for an occurance for which notability is presumed, and that is enough. The article is in a sorry state, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to consensus is meaningless: if such a consensus exists, then link to evidence of this, don't just claim it. It is not listed in any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. And yes, WP:NOTNEWS is perfectly applicable here; if all we have (from neutral observers, not government institutions which have to write such reports) is routine recent news coverage, then this is a not news article. This minor accident didn't result in prolonged coverage, changed regulations, later coverage in third-party RS, ... Fram (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if such a consensus exists, then link to evidence of this, don't just claim it Funny that, the page that once expressed that consensus got attacked from every angle every time it was referenced until it was gutted and for all intents and purposes depreciated. And now there are "link to the consensus or it doesn't count" calls. Hm, that is just so very odd isn't it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that "consensus" got attacked every time it was referenced, then perhaps it wasn't such a good example of consensus after all? But yes, "link to the consensus or it doesn't count", you got that right. Everyone can claim that some consensus exists, but without a link it is impossible to see whether it indeed exists, how local or universal it is, and whether the current page fits into the mould, the "rules" established by that consensus. Simply accepting "oh, the Bushranger says there is consensus, so keep" it just as wrong as saying "oh, Fram says delete, so delete". Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at that page (current and historical versions), it argued that accidents with fatalities should be included in articles about the airplane type (of course), and could have stand-alone articles if the GNG was met. Which is what is being argued here. That's why linking to the consensus you claimed isn't such an outrageous demand as you seem to make it: often, that consensus (ignoring for now the essay vs. guideline situation) doesn't tell what people claim it does. Does this subject meet the GNG? No, you have a newspaper report from when it happened (which is in itself WP:NOTNEWS: it fits the general description, even if it isn't enumerated in the examples), and an official report which got no attention as it turned out to be a one-off minor issue. Fram (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as an invalid AfD for a notable and reliably sourced subject. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing invalid about this AfD. It may end in keep, but "speedy keep" should only be used in specific circumstances, and this isn't one of them. Fram (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps speedy) - Another misuse of NOTNEWS which only bans articles with routine news coverage like, as it states "announcements, sports, or celebrities." This clearly passes GNG and had a fatality as a result of this commercial flight. And you don't need any fatalities for a flight be be notable. TWA Flight 841 (1979) had zero fatalities, no hull loss and the aircraft even went back into service soon after the incident yet it is still notable. Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of a flight is not dependent on the fatalities, indeed. Obviously, crashes with tens or hundreds of deaths are always notable, as they generate lots of coverage, usually over longer periods. This one was a minor blip on the news radar, an accident with one death, which just happens to be aboard a plane and not aboard a ship, train, ... Notability is based on prolonged coverage in independent third-party sources, which is missing here. Government reports don't give notability, they are obligatory reports (just like school inspection reports don't give notability to a school). Fram (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fram, if you honestly think an aviation accident is comparable to a school inspection, I don't know what to say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't. An aircrash investigation report is what I said. The report has to be made and doesn't indicate any notability. The effect it has (newspaper reports, law changes, NatGeo documentaries, ...) is what makes it notable. Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Longstanding consensus is that air crashes with at least one human fatality are notable. Not sure why this was relisted when consensus was already clear, but here we are for some reason. And it probably would qualify as a speedy as the rationale specified in nomination is invalid as others have noted. At the very least it should have been closed after a week following unanimous consensus. Why we are still here is a mystery to me. Just close this as keep and don't waste another week of our time. Smartyllama (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone (why was this relisted?) - per the article, the incident was both "fatal to humans" (one person died as a result of injuries sustained in the incident) and "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" (Airworthiness Directive 74-18-10), which are two of the three criteria for aircraft accident notability. The idea that the NTSB is a primary source for aircraft accident investigations is interesting but I think not in the spirit of WP:PRIMARY: the NTSB is the agency that reports officially on US-airspace accidents, and if they say "this is why the plane crashed" then that is as good as fact. It's not a violation of any of our policies to use their reports as a source to say "the NTSB said this is why the plane crashed". It's difficult to test notability based only on contemporary coverage for a minor incident that happened nearly 50 years ago now, but this article is well-written and well-sourced, and it serves no constructive benefit to Wikipedia to delete it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not concerned with "longstanding consensus" or anything that happened before I came to this article. We are instructed as editors of Wikipedia, to take these articles in a microcosm and look at the sources provided and the sources we can find conducting a WP:BEFORE search. You may not like Fram, from what I see there is a lot of animus being thrown about, but the fact remains, no matter what a consensus decided years ago, does the subject receive significant coverage in multiple (intellectually different) reliable and independent secondary sources? No. So according to the notability guideline WP:N the subject is not notable. If we disagree with the criteria that's cool, go through the process of changing it. Trying to circumvent the guideline just because enough people got together on an AfD somewhere, or wrote an essay about how bad the criteria is, does not change what we are given to judge notability by. If you had a consensus in this case then why didn't you change the criteria by which articles are judged for notability and this issue would never come up again? --ARose Wolf 19:10, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Salkilld[edit]

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

Of the three films we have articles on that he appeared in, 2 of them he does not even metrit being in the cast list, and the other one he had a very minor part as well. I see no evidence that even one of his roles was a significant role, let alone the multiple significant roles our guidelines require. The fact that article is only sourced to IMDb also does not help John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long list of credits on the BFI website, looks like he had a major role in the 1976 BBC show Survivors as he was listed first in the couple of episodes that I checked Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lot of television role credits. Seems to have been a regular cast member on several of them (Survivors, The Doombolt Chase, Never the Twain, The Manageress, etc.), credited roles in some films (A Horse Called Jester). ExRat (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Improvements in line with "keep" comments need to be made if this is to be closed as keep. Extending for 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Was a semi-regular in quite a few British TV series as noted above among several other parts, though seems to have attracted limited coverage. I think the fact the article gives a lot of prominence to his small role in one Red Dwarf episode is possibly an issue that needs looking at, but not grounds for deletion. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 28 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) 03:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Bokaro[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is notable in my opinion. PangolinPedia 08:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references on the article are primary which do not meet WP:NSCHOOL, I searched for reference and found many minor mentions but nothing that meets "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Sources in the article are archived pages from the school website. BEFORE showed nothing. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 28 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. The sources presented by keep proponents have not been effectively challenged by opposing editors. Rewriting or moving the article can be discussed outside AfD. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees as weapons[edit]

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

The entire article looks like an essay that is making the case for ideas presented in one book and one master thesis. The idea does not merit an entire article of its own. I do not see why a 1-2 paragraph subsection in the main article for Refugees would not be enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Forced displacement. The examples given in that article are almost all examples of forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and human trafficking. A lot of the article is also WP:SYNTH.VR _talk 01:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several book references using the term as described in the article. VR has some good arguments for merge, not being an expert on the subject, I cant vote either way on the merge suggestion. Jeepday (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~.Delete At the first glance, this claim appears in a very large number of sources, including books. I am not saying this is a valid concept. In many cases this could be just a notable propaganda slogan, but even as such it might be notable. However, after looking more carefully, the page appears way too much misleading, contentious, and WP:Coatrack. Hence WP:TNT would be the best option. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure what the best title for the article would be, but I've seen/read news stories about this topic under some label, so I believe sources, popular, political, and academic are there. The article does contain SYNTH and needs clean up. Regarding merging to Forced displacement, this topic is distinct even though related and I think merits its own article. So the article is in poor condition, but the subject is notable. I don't think this article is in the condition that TNT is required. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Relationship between refugees and terrorism". To add to the comments of TimothyBlue and Vice regent, this article looks as if it could be more broadly written to cover such a relationship, rather than merely using refugees as weapons. For me, it would work better because it falls under the immigration debate and seems even more notable than the current subject. Also, that the article is poorly written, though it is, is not an argument for deletion. Free Media Kid! 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it does sound rather surreal to change the subject to the proposed article name, as it somewhat makes terrorism look like an immutable trait of refugees, who themselves have been subject to persecution and violence. However, I would still defend my decision to move the article for the above reasons and also because it is mostly or almost entirely a concept, not a fact affecting a great deal of refugees. Free Media Kid! 22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there do seem to be quite a few issues with this article; but I do think that the topic itself is notable. Just having a look on Google Scholar shows these sources, which appear to me to show that the topic is notable (I haven't thoroughly read all of these; but having a look at the abstracts, they appear to suggest notability). Seagull123 Φ 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of sources left by User:Seagull123

- Marder, Lev (23 February 2018). "Refugees Are Not Weapons: The "Weapons of Mass Migration" Metaphor and Its Implications". International Studies Review. Oxford University Press (OUP): 576-. doi:10.1093/isr/vix055. ISSN 1521-9488.
- Greenhill, Kelly M. (2002). "Engineered Migration and the Use of Refugees as Political Weapons: A Case Study of the 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis". International Migration. 40 (4). Wiley: 39–74. doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00205. ISSN 0020-7985.
- Salehyan, Idean (2010). "Refugees as Weapons of the Weak". International Studies Review. 12 (4). Oxford University Press (OUP): 640–642. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00973.x. ISSN 1521-9488.
- Anderson, Tim (2019). Axis of resistance : towards an independent Middle East. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press, Inc. ISBN 978-1-949762-17-4. OCLC 1135357390. (chapter 11, "Refugees as Weapons of War")

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former Muslims United[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No separate notability from Nonie Darwish. References to the organisation are only passing and lack WP:SIGCOV (like the the posting of the billboard) and most of the in depth coverage relates to Nonie Darwish. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise this has previously been nominated for AfD. The discussion quality in the last AfD was poor, so I thought this was worth having again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article discusses an important subject and is supported by about a dozen references. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of WP:SIGCOV indicates that, whatever the importance of the issues they organized around, they're not an organization worth devoting an article to. (Plenty of marginal and outright non-notable groups have formed with a mission statement about fighting illiteracy, world hunger, etc.) A redirect to Nonie Darwish wouldn't be out of the question (redirects are cheap), but I'm not sure how plausible a search term it is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Reference	Source	Date	Contents	Reliability and assessment for significant coverage
1	"NewsRealBlog" (defunct, but preserved via the wayback machine) described as the "team blog of the David Horowitz Freedom Center"	August 2010	References a piece in the New English Review by Nonie Darwish defending FMU "against moderate muslims"	Appears to be a self-published blog hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center which spotlights the deprecated FrontPage Magazine published by the organisation and the associated Jihad Watch in the websites banner. Does not evidence that organisation is separately notable from Nonie Darwish
2	"Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream"	2014	Can't access, according to the reference the group is described as "fringe"	A reliable academic source. Being described as "fringe" does not establish notability separate from Nonie Darwish
3	The Unz Review by Michelle Malkin	September 2009	Essentially a reposting of a press release by FMU from around the time they were launched	As this is from around the time the group launched, this does not demonstrate sustained or SIGCOV. The Unz Review is a fringe site that has published white nationalist material, and Michelle Malkin herself is associated with Holocaust denial
4	New York Post	November 2009	About muslim women attacking their husbands, only reference to FMU is in the sentence "Some believe that the sheer vastness of the US has kept [honor killings] largely off the radar. “We’ve not been seeing it yet because our country’s so big,” says Amil Imani, who was born in Iran but raised in the US, and is the founder of Former Muslims United."	New York Post is considered generally unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no significant coverage, just an incidental mention
5	The New York Times	August 2010	The article is about various claims made on the internet about Feisal Abdul Rauf as a result of the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Brief mention of FMU in the paragraph "Bloggers have asserted that the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization led by Mr. Abdul Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, “refuse to sign” a pledge rejecting punishment by death for apostasy sent to its office by Former Muslims United. The pledge read, “We now pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to achieve for former Muslims their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We claim these rights as the foundation for our right to freedom from Shariah. We urge you to join us.”"	The New York Times is a reliable source. FMU is only briefly mentioned, and does not demonstrate SIGCOV
6	The Washington Times	September 2009	Reports on a press conference by FMU from around their time of founding, decrying the persecution of ex-muslims	There is no concensus on the reliability of The Washington Times per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The piece is clearly about the group and may demonstrate SIGCOV.
7	Fox News	August 2010	About concerns around the building of Memphis Islamic Center in Tennessee. Only reference to FMU is "Jerry Gordon, a member of the board of Former Muslims United, a group dedicated to raising awareness of "the threat from authoritative Shariah to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims," says the fears are not about religion, they are about Shariah and political Islam."	There is no concensus about the reliablity of Fox News on political topics per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Coverage of FMU is passing and does not demonstrate SIGCOV
8	The New York Times	August 2010	About oppositon to the building of Mosques around the United States. only reference to FMU is "A group called Former Muslims United put up a billboard saying “Stop the Murfreesboro Mosque.” The group’s president is Nonie Darwish, also the founder of Arabs for Israel, who spoke against Islam in Murfreesboro at a fund-raising dinner for International Christian Embassy Jerusalem."	Only incidentally mentioned, does not demonstrate notability separate from Nonie Darwish
9	Christian Broadcasting Network	July 2010	About FMU putting up a billboard against the "Murfreesboro Mosque", almost half the article is an extended quote from Darwish	I don't think that CBU is a reliable source and does not provide SIGCOV, does not demonstrate notability separate from Darwish
10	WKRN-TV	July 2010	About FMU putting up a billboard against the "Murfreesboro Mosque". Quotes Darwish as the representative of the group	Local news source, doesn't demonstrate notability separate from Darwish
11	KFFB	December 2009	About FMU praising the banning of minarets on mosques in a Swiss referendum, almost the whole article is extended quotes from Darwish	Appears to be a blog on a local Arkansas music station, Does not demonstrate notability and given that its mostly extended quotes from Darwish does not demonstrate notability separate from Darwish.

In conclusion, there appears to be very little significant coverage of this organisation by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and Hemiauchenia. I would add that extensive editing would need to be completed before this is an article, not a soap-box. IMHO, Washington Times is not areliable source, and since it is owned and managed indirectly by the Unification Church, it has a undisclosed conflict of interest. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 26 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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alger Chapman Jr.[edit]

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

The entire article uses only one source, and a quick google search yielded next to nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Bettydaisies (talk) 04:06, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you didn't find more sources because this isn't his most common name. See here, here, and here for some of the other sources.--User:Namiba 13:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only uses one reference in entire article which isn.t of WP:GNG standard. If @Namiba: wants to make the article stick, they should consider the references they mentioned above into the article. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a pass of GNG is based off the existence of sources, not whether they are in the article. The sources found by Namiba are enough for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tentatively, once the sources found are added, then it would pass WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable subject with significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I doubt if the nominator performed a before search before nominating this article for deletion. I will now add a few sources. Luciapop (talk) 13:43, 28 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) 03:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Born a Champion[edit]

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

Recently created article that currently has a draft Draft:Born a Champion that was denied WP:AfC BOVINEBOY2008 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage promoting a not yet released movie is insufficient to show either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met. Papaursa (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like this was filmed under the name "Mickey Kelley" so I'll see if there's any production info out there to justify this meeting NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to pull up enough to put together a production section but it's still relatively light coverage-wise, which is a little surprising given the talent involved here. I suppose that if this is deleted any changes should be merged into the AfC draft. It's likely that this will gain the extra needed coverage once it releases via reviews and whatnot, but right now I'm kind of undecided on the notability here as far as NFF goes. My concern is basically this: there's enough to where this could probably squeak by with a NFF keep since there's coverage of production, however because there's little coverage of production I'm concerned that this may get passed over as far as reviews go - which would pose an issue with NFILM after the release date passes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is not meeting WP:NFF but the fact that there is already a working draft on the topic. If anything, that article should be published through WP:AfC as it has a longer edit history and will also credit the original edits. It is not appropriate for editors to create articles that get to live on when other editors are working through the article creation protocols imo. BOVINEBOY2008 11:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bypassing a declined AfC submission (almost certainly unknowingly, in this case) is not on its own a rationale for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Draft:Born a Champion has precedence, so if it qualifies as a mainspace topic article, the draft is the one that should be moved to mainspace over this later version. Aside from that, I am concerned about the level of coverage here – nothing about this film from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter or ~~Deadline Hollywood~~. So maybe leaving as a draft is the correct call for right now. Add: OK, there's one article from Deadline about the film under its original title "Mickey Kelley" – [42]. But the current mainspace article still looks like a "cut-and-paste" job of the original Draft, so if anything belongs in mainspace it's the draft, so my vote does not change. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only because of WP:NFF; should be an article once movie is released. ~EdGl talk 20:50, 28 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 14:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Pippal[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, tagged for sources since 2011. Cupper52 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps someone will find coverage, but I cannot find any. Possibly (talk) 17:45, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, the GNG, and any other standard I can imagine. The fact that it's a BLP makes it even worse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cuñado, The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at Google Scholar,[43] I think the subject does not yet meet WP:PROF. However, as she has multiple books, the most relevant guideline seems to be WP:AUTHOR, which requires "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's one in German on Schatzkunst. Die Goldschmiede und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters [44] but others would be useful. I will have a more careful look. I'd suggest that this AfD is held open as it has not been indexed in the most relevant deletion sorting fora, which might bring more reviewers. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her WorldCat page[45] shows that her books are held in multiple libraries (1,200 library holdings in total), with four books held by >100 libraries: Wien und die Entwicklung der kunsthistorischen Methode (143 libraries), A short history of art in Vienna (129 libraries), Kunst des Mittelalters : eine Einführung von den Anfängen der christlichen Kunst bis zum Ende des Hochmittelalters (129 libraries) and Schatzkunst : die Goldschmiede- und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters (101 libraries), and there are three more held by >50 libraries. Perhaps DGG could give an expert opinion here? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Espresso Addict and WP:NAUTHOR. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Library holdings, though not a formal criterion, can be a useful proxy in fields where citation analysis does not apply--and it dos not apply in these fields, because the density of publication is much lower in any areas relying on books. Given the extent to which Worldcat over-represents US library holdings, and relatively few US academic libraries collect to any substantial extent works other than in the English language, these figures are very substantial for works in German dealign with European topics. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found and added to the article a second book review for Schatzkunst. There appears to exist a review of Die Pfarrkirche von Schöngrabern by Patrik Reuterswärd in a Norwegian journal in 1993, but I am having difficulty even finding the name of the journal — anyone else have better luck? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it!. So now we have three reviews of two books. Still pretty borderline by that measure of WP:AUTHOR, but getting closer. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article is developing throughout the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and the continuing improvement of the page during the duration. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After much searching I found another review, bringing it up to four reviews for three books. That's enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements since the AfD nom have convinced me that WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold effect[edit]

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

The existence of this article inhibits Search. There are 26 mentions of "threshold effect" in Enwiki, several not included on this page, and the use of Search is more likely to get the reader to where they want to be rather than landing on this page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it, specially if it should actually be a disambiguation page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't quite figure out what this should be, but I doubt it will work as a disambiguation. There are threshold effects in absolutely every branch of science, probably in every sub-sub-discipline; it's such a ubiquitous term that it will always have to be accompanied by a modifier. Unless one wants to go ahead and just add in the master list, this is pretty pointless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary dab; possibly redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a firm outcome of some description.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - please see my thoughts on talk page as well as my substantial revisions to the page itself. This is so obviously a broad-concept. I hope the changes I started make that more apparent. Deleteopedia (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There might be something notable here, but currently this is an unreferenced stub that asks for a WP:TNT treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per above Sungodtemple (talk) 13:41, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demet Mutlu[edit]

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

Resume-like BLP of businesswoman with mostly awards and speaking engagements.--Canyonpass (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here actually rises to a claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has major problems, but the subject is actually notable in my opinion. She is the founder and CEO of Trendyol, which is "the largest e-commerce platform in Turkey". According to this article by Anadolu Agency, the company created 1.1 million jobs in Turkey in 2020 alone. Keivan.f^Talk 05:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JPL is just speedrunning delete votes at this point and I doubt that he tries to search additional sources. I’ve added some sources where citation was needed. The following sources are RS: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. I think this person meets WP:GNG. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Keivan. Setreis (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of those listed examples only Bloomberg really qualifies as an RS. Half of them don't even have an author.--Canyonpass (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure whether this is notable and I try to stay out of marginal cases where most sources are likely to be in a language I don't speak. But I wanted to chime in to rebut a bad argument. Notability is not inherited; no matter how large or important the company someone may have founded, for a biographical article they need to personally be the focus of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. FalconK (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bloomberg, World Economic Forum and Fortune Turkey are all good secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per good secondary sources. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 25 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. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7th Inspection Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Fram (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

- Oppose Its very notable. It was formely known as the Control Commission. It has been in existence since the 1st WPK Congress. Its one of the main decision-making bodies of the Workers' Party of Korea. Its members are usually highstanding Central Committee and Politburo members. Members of the Central Committee and Politburo make up the country's leadership.
- The organ was "elected" by the 7th WPK Central Committee in its 1st Plenary Session.
- Hong In-bom - the chairman of the 7th - was a member of the Central COmmittee, and his successor Jo Yon-jun was an alternate member of the WPK Politburo.
- The Inspetion Commission is responsible for purging the party of members deemed bad. --Ruling party (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is needed are independent, reliable sources discussing the 7th commission indepth. Sources which are independent of the party or the government (not state media regurgitating government propaganda either), and which indicate that this commission has received significant attention. Fram (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I've added more sources. There is also a very good analysis of the composition of the Control Commission/Inspection Commission in the book Political Leadership in Korea — but I don't have access to the whole book (only through Google Books). The body is notable, and North Korea analysts write about it as notable. --Ruling party (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That book is from 2014, if my search is correct. Which means that it can't discuss this version of the commission though, which is from 2016. Fram (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep This appears to me to be part of a good faith effort to docuemnt important NK state bodies. Lack of obvious cites in western media is unfortunate but goes with the territory. I think the subject is notable despite the absence of cites. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep North Korea doesnt have much in the way of independent, reliable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that an argument to keep something? Fram (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would feel good to keep everything we think should belong here. I don't blame people for fighting for something they want to see included. However, the notability guideline is what we have to rule over every article included in the encyclopedia. You may think it's broken. You may think it's the best thing since sliced bread. The point is that it doesn't matter what we think. Policy is policy. If the subject does not receive "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources" then it MUST not be retained, period. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: But the article is referenced by external coverage! And... None of know Korean so probably way more Korean (both South and North...) --Ruling party (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party We can play these games all day and night. I do not assume something must be there. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Either the subject is clearly notable or not. It is not so it should not have a stand-alone article. If you have an article that you believe it should be merged or redirected to then present it. I am open to all of that as a possibility. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsistunagiska But I don't get why its not clearly notable? :P Leading North Korean analysts write about it here in NK News: [53]

Everyone who writes about North Korea know its one of the leading bodies in the country so how is this "playing games"? YOu need to explain that part. Its existed for barely two days and we are already claiming its not notable? --Ruling party (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party When an article is created is irrelevant. We have articles brought up for AfD the day they were created and some that are brought up 14 years after being created. The length of time on Wikipedia does not confer notability nor does it diminish notability. The sources, both included in the article and those found when conducting a WP:BEFORE search, are the determining factors. NKNEWS.org is not considered a reliable or independent source. I would also like to add that just because a source has a Wikipedia article itself does not confer reliability upon what it says. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: NKNews is not reliable? It was established by Andrey Lankov and is literally the scholarly hub of North Korean news anywhere. Leading North Korean scholars from all over the world write in it... So why isn't NK News a reliable source? --Ruling party (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the word scholar is overused and carries little weight in these discussions. Just because someone calls you a scholar does not immediately confer notability or reliability. I thought we established that just because you have an article on Wikipedia it doesn't make you a reliable source so wiki-links to other articles do not change the fact this subject isn't notable as the nominator has presented above. You need to look at WP:NOT to see what Wikipedia is not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: ???? He wrote From Stalin to Kim Il Sung: The Formation of North Korea, 1945–1960 and his greatest work, the one he's best known for, is Crisis in North Korea: The Failure of De-Stalinization, 1956 about the failed toppling of Kim Il-sung? Are we really trying to state a leading scholar whose work gets published by universities and is recognised as a leading specialist... is not a scholar? --Ruling party (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:BLUDGEONING. Walls of text do not change anything. the bottom line is this: I found there are no reliable secondary and intellectually independent sources which give this subject significant coverage as per our notability requirements. Please let others weigh in without your continuous chastisements and mocking. Thank you. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Sorry - my mistake. I will stop - I'm new to this place. I just literally cannot see how anyone could actually take the position you are taking. It doesn't make sense to me at all... Its like saying we shouldn't have an article about American secretaries of state or list the members of the Supreme Court.

But I will stopp. Sorry. It wasnt my intention of bludgeoning anyone. --Ruling party (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: although it won't change anything here, because NK News doesn't have any in-depth articles about the 7th Inspection Commission, I just want to say something for the record. NK News is absolutely a WP:RS. It's a South Korean specialized news website written by an international staff of professional journalists with high editorial standards and employs some of the best known university professors in the field. It's not an overstatement to say that it's considered one of the best, most realiable, sources in the field. It's also absolutely an independent source. Maybe you're confusing it with some North Korean propaganda website, like KCNA, or even some of the more problematic South Korean news sites, like the Daily NK? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not possible to gauge coverage in reliable sources through a simple WP:BEFORE search in English. A great deal of North Korean studies scholarship is conducted in South Korea in Korean. There is also lots of scholarship in Japanese and Russian and, to a lesser extent, German. At any rate, contrary to what others have said above, the Inspection Commission is one of the least influential bodies of the WPK: it's not the Central Committee, Politburo or Central Military Commission, which are the principal decision making bodies, of which a lot is written. Indeed, the 7th Inspection Commission was the last Inspection Commission as its duties were delegated to the Central Auditing Commission (another not-so-important body) at the party's 8th Congress this month. Furthermore, the 7th Inspection Commission was relatively short-lived (only 5 years, cf. the 36 years of its predecessor) due to the party having returned to a five-year routine of re-electing its bodies at the said congress. But none of this matters until someone does a proper WP:BEFORE search in at least the languages outlined above. The Daily NK story cited in the article does suggest that the 7th Inspection Commission did see some action during its tenure, so there could be more sources out there. Finally, for the people looking for a merge target, Inspection Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea would be more comfortably notable with decades worth of potential sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Great comment! :)

I would add that the Central Auditing Commission has greatly increased in importance. The Chairman is a politburo member, one of the vice chairmen is an alternate member of the Politburo and the other vice chairmen is a member of the 8th WPK Central Committee. It goes to show that Kim Jong-un's anti-corruption drive isn't just propaganda—there is some purpose behind it. He's trying to strengthen the control bodies of the party to strengthen the Central Party Leadership's control [his control in other words]. --Ruling party (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruling party: yes, it is certainly one of the most important developments to have come out of the 8th Congress. But for our purposes in this discussion, the development has not generated a significant number of sources about the outgoing 7th Inspection Committee. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this back and forth is irrelevant to the topic of this AfD. Wikipedia is not a news organization. We are not journalist nor are we reporters. The only relevant question is whether or not the subject receives significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. I would add that it needs to be sources easily accessible by the general population to verify the information being presented. If the answer to that is no then it doesn't belong according to the only measuring stick we have for actual notability as opposed to presumed notability. That's not my opinion but then Wikipedia doesn't operate off my personal opinion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reckon this discussion could use some more eyes and input. Currently no consensus but definitely a chance for one to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 keeps, 1 delete, not sure why this was relisted Daniel. A long time ago an article I started was relisted 5 count'em 5 times. Geo Swan (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, none of the 'keep' arguments are particularly convincing from a policy point of view (two slightly better than the third). Hope is for some more input, which I think is a distinct possibility, assessing the sourcing etc. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, thanks for the explanation. I disagree.
I strongly agree with Finnusertop. Genuine, meaningful compliance with WP:BEFORE can be shockingly uncommon. As Finnusertop said, this failure to fully comply with BEFORE is most apparent when the article is about a person whose name has been transcribed from a foreign language that uses a non-Latin alphabet, as is the case here. It is also most apparent when namesakes have required the article title to be disambiguated.

Usually I am pretty good at searching for topics in languages that don't use the Latin alphabet. My own efforts disappointed me here.

Our expectations for the number of references we expect have to be adjusted for certain fields.

One of the AFD I participated in, 15 years ago, when I was a newbie, was an individual who had lived in France in 18th or 19th century. The nominator's justification was that, of the references, only 2 covered him in any detail, and he or she expected genuinely notable individuals to have more references than that. It has been so long I couldn't tell you who this was, but an experienced contributor made a very articulate case that left a strong impression on me. He or she argued that this was an unreasonable expectation. Yes, if that BLP was living today, or had recently died, in our world were lots of documents are digital, and are online, we'd find lots more references. But for someone from the 18th or 19th century, for multiple references to be online, this guy must have been a pretty significant figure.

This Commission is different than a 19th century figure from French literature, but the principle is the same. Fewer references were available from 19th century France, due to age and primitive technology. For North Korea fewer references are due to it being a locked down, totalitarian regime. Its central organizations are just as important as those of any other nation.

I think @Ruling party, Tagishsimon, and Rathfelder: are making basically the same point - due to the totalitarian nature of North Korea, and its much sparser pool of RS than we would expect from a free country, we should recognize that the RS found, so far, are sufficient to extablish this commission's notability. Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Context is important. How many independent reputable sources exist for North Korea? I dont know, but I would be very surprised if there are not a lot more for North Dakota. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I don't know who you are but I like you a lot! :) Especially since I'm having trouble creating similar pages for the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, an authoritarian party with its own distinct writing script

Thanks. Since I'm not a native I'd never been able to explain it so well as you did just now. --Ruling party (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm honestly a little surprised by this, but there is evidence in the sources given in the article that outside observers have examined this topic an therefore there is notability according to the GNG. The "significance' prong is, indeed, open to question but any independent reporting on organs of government in the DPRK has very little information to work with. These look as significant as one is likely to find about any governmental topic in that necrocracy. There is room for tonal improvement but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEYMAN. I understand the rationale of the nomination, as when it was made the article was woefully undersourced. However the improvements made by the article's creator have made it pass WP:VERIFY, and now passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 28 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) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Guards (United States)[edit]

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

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Red Guards (USA)

Failure to establish notability per WP:ORG. No "claim to fame" and lack of coverage by third-party sources; almost all the sources cited in the article are self-published, except for two citing the local weekly The Austin Chronicle. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Article is poor, but there are secondary sources available suggesting some notability.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expecting to !vote to delete here, for the same reasons as at the previous AfD, and wouldn't necessarily be wholly opposed to a WP:TNT approach, but I think the sources found by BobfromBrockley, especially this extensive profile in The Austin Chronicle, are sufficent to indicate notability. Pretty much all the content and sources currently in the article could go without losing anything valuable, but better sources clearly do exist, somewhat to my surprise. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If the article is kept, I would appreciate it if everyone who found reliable secondary/tertiary sources could add them to the article where appropriate. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:00, 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 University of Connecticut Health Center. — Wug·a·po·des 01:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Service Track[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Created discussion on proposed deletion on the article's talk page in 2013 and reposted in 2018, but no responses. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some ongoing coverage. See, e.g., Local physician assistant students at Quinnipiac University selected as Urban Service Track scholars. However, without significantly more coverage, covering the program via a merge to University_of_Connecticut_Health_Center#Education might provide better context to readers. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is one 3 paragraph article from a local new source that mentions the program. I would not describe that as ongoing coverage. Merging the content into the education section under University_of_Connecticut_Health_Center#Education would an acceptable compromise, although I do not believe it's sufficiently notable even for that coverage. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University_of_Connecticut_Health_Center#Education as I am also unable to find evidence of independent notability. StarM 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no target for Redirect at University of Connecticut Health Center or University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine – fails WP:NSOFTWARE – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 16:20, 30 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, continue with the ongoing merge discussion. Although the delete !votes were more numerous, only one was based in policy or guideline. The nomination is empty, another !vote supports deletion because cricket fans are allegedly to stubborn to merge – a position which violates WP:ATD-M, while a third !vote recommends waiting a few years, which is a sensible position, but which doesn't deal with the notability and sources of the actual article in question.

The remaining delete vote says that notability is not met. While the sourcing is below that of analogous articles (e.g. List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, a featured article, has. source for each person being named captain), the ESPN Cricinfo source shows that games played as captain is a stat that they actively track. I couldn't find any such comprehensive tracking from a quick search for an similar stat tracker for the NHL. The keep !vote notes that the analogous Bangladeshi list has a similar level of sourcing and was accepted as a Featured List.

The point of distinguishment is that thee Lanka Premier League has only run for one season so far, though sources point to a likely second season. If the second season does not occur, there definitely exists consensus here to merge this article somewhere. I'm hesitant to close as merge even though the nominator, two delete !voters, and the redirect/merge !voter endorsed that option. Only the last !voter specified a merger target, while the ongoing merge discussion has two potential merger targets. Discussing the content and destination of any mergers are best done at the ongoing merge discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lanka Premier League captains[edit]

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

GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related pages because of the same; please indicate a preference at these discussions GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A featured list with a similar content exists List of Bangladesh Premier League captains which also contains same type of information. Empire AS ^Talk! 19:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article already being discussed for merging. No need of this AfD. Human (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the cricket fans won't allow merger, deletion is the only answer.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is an option that I could support also. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. We can only look at the article that is presented within a vacuum. The subject itself does not meet our notability requirement as laid in WP:N. The subject itself does not receive SIGCOV in reliable sources. You can merge this into a Season or League article if one is appropriately provided but seeing as those articles themselves may not meet the notability guideline it may need to be deleted entirely. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, we should be waiting a few years ot create an historical list. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to align with the other ones, a wider consensus re this articles will likely form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. [63] [64] [65] Empire AS ^Talk! 11:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a merge to 2020 Lanka Premier League. It's far, far too early to have this article yet. I suppose that if people insist it could be re-created at some later point if the league ever plays a second season - note that this is by no means guaranteed at this point given the history of these sorts of leagues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:18, 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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion to establish notability, but sources might exist in German. — Wug·a·po·des 01:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zammad[edit]

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

Article about a piece of software sourced entirely to self-published or related sources. A search for other possible sources shows nothing better that would indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mccapra: I have added further secondary sources to the article to underline notability. What do you think? --Schokita (talk) 08:18, 04 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is currently based on 16 secondary sources (as well as 28 primary sources). How many secondary sources would be required for notability? Schokita (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the additional sources are certainly an improvement. I’m not sure whether they’re enough to establish notability. Let’s see what the consensus of other editors is. Mccapra (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims in the article that meet WP:GNG google search does not find anything. As mentioned, references all seem to be primary sources. Jeepday (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems it has received coverage in a number of German-language sources, and it has a long-standing article on the German Wikipedia. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the “keep” voters share the best three pieces of coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources? It’s not relevant to this discussion whether or not there’s a long-standing article on de.wiki (there are thousands of articles on en.wiki that don’t meet our notability requirements. We just haven’t got round to deleting them yet and de.wiki is no different). Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources cited in the article include Linux-Magazin, heise.de, LANline, golem.de and t3n. I think this shows that "it is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", as WP:NSOFTWARE puts it. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:21, 28 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Rowley[edit]

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

No significant coverage found in searches. Fails GNG. Also unsourced for 12 years. SK2242 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. This actually actually dates back over 16 years. The 12 and a half years is how long it has been tagged as lacking adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, and I would add in specifically WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 26 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat riad[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable . The references are either mere mentions or interviews where he says what he pleases, or are almost entirely about other people. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't need this kind of fluff on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional piece for a non-notable person. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purely promotional piece. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources. Promotional. It does not meet WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 17:55, 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 Dundee–Happy Hollow Historic District. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content will be accessible in the page history can be merged into the district article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hollow Boulevard[edit]

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

This is a non-notable street that doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. (Contested PROD) Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 21 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} 08:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or "Merge", to Dundee–Happy Hollow Historic District. There is some incoherence in how the article states it, but I believe it is meaning to assert importance in that it is the only essentially unchanged one, out of the boulevards that Horace Cleveland designed for Omaha. Which explains or contributes to the National Register of Historic Places listing of the district. Apparently it forms part or all of the western edge of the district, but is included in the district, and contributes to the name of the district. "Redirect" is appropriate if there is no mergeable content. "Merger" is correct if there is some need to develop the content article to properly receive the redirect (which I think is the case, actually, and I think the redirect should specifically point to a new anchor in the target article, where this boulevard is to be discussed).

AFD participants and closers are supposed to seek wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and this is a good one available here. Closer can either implement proper merger or leave indication that the merger should be implemented. --Doncram (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Light merge to the historic district per Doncram. The last of the Horace Cleveland streets bit seems relevant for that article. I agree that there doesn't seem to be enough to hold down a separate article for this, but a some of this content is reliably sourced and looks useful. Hog Farm _Talk 07:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of a few Omaha area road articles that a new editor has created. Most may not be notable, but if there's a target where any content should be merged, keep that in mind.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:49, 25 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) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farnam Street[edit]

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

This is a non-notable street that doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. (Contested PROD) Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL city street. Not passing GNG, not even a numbered route to redirect to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests this is a street notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People use it all the time. I am from near Omaha and it is used as an alternate to the main street of Omaha, Dodge Street. Ask any person from Omaha, and they'll know farnam Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhawbh (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are reasons to have an article on Wikipedia, Bhawbh. To have an article, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Unless you can find some specific sources that are about the street (and not just mentioning it passing), and unless those sources are reliable, the street just doesn't warrant an article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, I found a source about the street. two actually. It does warrant an article according to the rules of Imzadi 1979 User talk:Imzadi1979.^[3] If an entire article about Farnam Street from the actual magazine of OMaha isn't enough, I dunno what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhawbh (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moving comment here to avoid appearance of double voting. Two sources a couple months apart about a single subtopic (the one-way section) does not equate to "significant coverage", sorry. Where's the rest of the media coverage of the roadway over the years, discussing other aspects? Imzadi 1979 → 18:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is anything other than a generic street in a mid-sized city, a search brought up only passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 27 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harney Street[edit]

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

This is a non-notable street that doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. (Contested PROD) Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL city street in Omaha. Not passing GNG, not even a numbered route to redirect to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Not notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:28, 27 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.

^ https://rivnepost.rv.ua/news/valjer-j-makovjeckij-usp-kh-fokstrot-sv-domo-vibuduvana-zakonom-rn-st
^ https://bp.ubr.ua/profile/vyhodcev-gennadii-anatolevich-2345
^ https://www.omahamagazine.com/2019/02/18/301447/the-reversible-problem-with-farnam-street

[1] Jason Scott (2006-04-08). "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" (transcript). Notacon 3. Archived from the original on 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-01-23.

[Baker_quote-2] J.P. Kirby (October 20, 2007). The Problem with Wikipedia. J.P.'s Random Ramblings.

[3] ttps://rivnepost.rv.ua/news/valjer-j-makovjeckij-usp-kh-fokstrot-sv-domo-vibuduvana-zakonom-rn-st

[4] ttps://bp.ubr.ua/profile/vyhodcev-gennadii-anatolevich-2345

[5] ttps://www.omahamagazine.com/2019/02/18/301447/the-reversible-problem-with-farnam-street

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]