Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 22	January 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condom World[edit]

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

Page should be deleted because it does not meet WP:GNG. The sources do not constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. Moreover, the sources are not verified about the subject itself. The lone NPR.org source doesn't even mention the subject. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would be my vote for now. If someone can add more cites (if they exists), I may change my vote. Mercy11 (talk) 23:26, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayten Aydın[edit]

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

There are no reliable and independent sources to prove the article's notability. Nanahuatl (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that this is sourced only to the subject's scholarly works, I think the only case to be made for notability is through WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. But I don't see the heavy citations or well-reviewed books needed for either of those. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles should be built on articles about a person, not articles by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn’t seem to be notable. I cannot find independent coverage. Keivan.f^Talk 03:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:25, 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. Hut 8.5 08:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisely (company)[edit]

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

I don't see how this app or company is notable. 5 years since this article at HuffPost there is practically no coverage for it at independent reliable sources. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sarah.k.mays has a conflict of interest regarding this page (per disclosure at the Talk page). --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a recent, journalist-authored Current Magazine article to the citations. See source assessment table below. Rapanuiislander (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Huff Post	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	In-depth profile on the company's history. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost
Current Magazine	Y	Y	?	Y	Y	local magazine whose reliability has not been evaluated by Wikipedia
Hospitality Technology	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Journalist-authored article in industry publication
FSR Magazine (Klein)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Journalist-authored article in industry publication
Total qualifying sources					4	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

The age of existing sources should not be a consideration in the deletion of this page, see: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Rapanuiislander (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how it meets NCORP. The sourcing to do so does not seem to exist. Possibly (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; the references do not amount to sigcov of the company (most are about the app, and most are only passing mentions in some other context). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Additional sourcing is needed to meet WP:SIGCOV, but use of software in COVID contract tracing appears to meet WP:GNG Redoryxx (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should look instead at WP:CORPDEPTH since NCORP is the appropriate guideline. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added an additional citation that meets WP:GNG. There should now be enough sources to reach WP:SIGCOV Rapanuiislander (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the references listed at the article which are not PRIMARY or simple listings:

This in ecurrent.com is entirely based on an announcement by the company with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
This from FSR is entirely based on an announcement by their business partner, therefore is not independent, fails WP:ORGIND
This from Hospitality Technology is practically the same article as the previous reference with the same paragraphs and quotations, fails for the same reason.
This from HuffPost is a PR puff piece designed to increase brand awareness and relies entirely on an interview with the founders and information provided by the company with no independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND
This from TechCrunch is also a PR puff piece based entirely on an announcement with the obligatory interview with a founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Pando is pretty good and in my opinion meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, we appear to have a single reference but we need more than a single reference for notability and I am unable to locate any other sources that meet the criteria. As such, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors like tables so...

Source	Meets WP:ORGIND?	Pass/Fail WP:NCORP	Notes
Huff Post	N	N	Entirely based on Interview and information provided by the company.
Current Magazine	N	N	Entirely based on Interview and information provided by the company.
Hospitality Technology	N	N	Same article as FSR below. Fails for same reason as above.
FSR Magazine (Klein)	N	N	Same article as Hospitality above. Fails for same reason as above.
Total qualifying sources		0	Not a single reference meets the criteria as per NCORP

Delete - the sourcing does not meet the criteria as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no indication of notability in all sources cited. Northern Escapee (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Courtenay[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG and does not meet any other Wikipedia guideline. Keep in mind that there are thousands of female soccer players who do meet the criteria, but not her. Geschichte (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Dougal18 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the PROD was removed with a comment that just states "WP:GNG". I can see a few small articles here and this brief article. Can anyone find anything else? Pinging Hmlarson in case she found any others and would like to add them to this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hardcastle[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)

Fails WP:GNG - while Dmartin969 makes a point on the article talk page that the subject meets criteria such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR, those guidelines say that he is likely to be notable, not that he automatically is. GNG is the main criteria any subject on Wikipedia should pass, and there is barely any significant coverage for him to meet it. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article has received a significant amount of coverage. Though not all of it is linked from the article, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article per WP:NEXIST. I think WP:NTEMP also applies in this scenario, as even though(especially mainstream) media coverage has faded as buzz around the book did, that doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the best selling book in the UK –DMartin 04:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)[reply]

I would also like to riterate what I said on the article's talk page:

"[The article is notable] based on the following cirteria:

From WP:anybio(1), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour": Times #1 bestseller

From WP:author(3), "The person has created...a significant or well-known work or collective body of work": Wrote a book that reached was a #1 best seller, AND has created a YouTube channel that has over 2.5 million subscirbers and 1 billion views.

From WP:ENTERTAINER(2), "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.": Major YouTube fanbase, which could be considered a cult following.

I feel like based on meeting multiple crieteria present in WP:BIO this individual clearly meets the notability requiremnts."

–DMartin 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)[reply]

I did a BEFORE search before nominating and found nothing further in significant coverage for it to meet GNG. NTEMP only applies if the subject has met GNG in the first place. SK2242 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again those guidelines say the subject is only presumed notable if they pass it. This still fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable when conducting a WP:BEFORE search. As pointed out, SNG's can be used to presume notability and create articles. That presumed notability can be rebutted. The evidence is what it is. Being a #1 best seller author, while significant, is not notable in an of itself according to the criteria. Creating a YouTube channel that has 2.5 million subscribers, while of import, does not equal notability as per the criteria. It must pass criteria laid out in WP:N. That is the only criteria relevant at AfD's. This does not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per analysis done by DMartin. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What analysis has been done to meet GNG or N? Dmartin969 only brought up secondary guidelines such as ENT and NAUTHOR when this still fails GNG and N. SK2242 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SK2242, I don't think I have to explain that. Dmartin's analysis is clear that the subject is a case of WP:NEXIST. I have explained enough. And I won't reply anymore. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a little bit of "Why are we here?". Would recommend rereading GNG to clarify that guideline's relationship with the presumption of notability itself. Notability guidelines work alongside, not against, one another. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would request that everyone make themselves aware of the definition of presume according to Wikipedia. It does not guarantee anything and only can be used in article creation. Facts are all that matter in an AfD, not presumptions. --ARose Wolf 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dmartin969's analysis. Maxorca (talk) 04:28, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Winfield[edit]

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

BLP of a subject who does not pass WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Liz Winfield (64 works by) (a.k.a. Elizabeth Winfield)". AustLit. 2008-06-04. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
2. Bantick, Christopher (2003-03-30). "A Place in the Dark". Sunday Tasmanian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article notes, "Around the Hobart poetry traps, Liz Winfield is well known. She is a performance poet and a pensive, meditative writer. Her new and outstanding poetry collection Too Much Happens is her first solo collection."
3. Bantick, Christopher (2006-11-12). "Poems' intimate relationships". Sunday Tasmanian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article notes, "Liz Winfield is a poet of many guises. Her new chapbook, Catalogue of Love, is a collection as intensely personal as a postcard of intimacies whilst maintaining broad-based appeal."
4. Pierce, Peter (2003-06-14). "New poetry". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article notes, "Tasmanian Liz Winfield's first book of verse, Too Much Happens, begins with a poem called Warning in which she advises that "I am a confessional poet". ... Winfield writes tight, jaunty poems that court mawkishness, but only occasionally (as in Love Song) succumb to it."
5. Bantick, Christopher (2006-02-12). "Winfield's inspiring farewell". Sunday Tasmanian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liz Winfield to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for finding these. 1. Is a database entry so I’m not sure it helps with notability. 2,3 and 5 are by the same author in the same regional press so while that carries some weight I’m not sure how much. 4 is good but brief. All this may amount to a GNG pass but I’ll wait and see what others think. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AustLit says, "AustLit is an encyclopaedia of Australian writers and writing" and https://www.austlit.edu.au/about says, "AustLit is brought to you by The University of Queensland in collaboration with academic, library, education and research organisations", so I consider its entry about Liz Winfield to be an encyclopaedia entry that contributes to notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think there is enough combined material about Winfield to establish notability, but I agree with your analysis that the subject is borderline notable. Cunard (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources identified by Cunard. pburka (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think Cunrads arguments are good and she may also meet notability with having won an award. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. I also note that a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers revealed many (12+) articles, although most were in the Sunday Tasmanian (regional paper) by the same author (Christopher Bantick), as noted by Mccapra. On balance I would keep the page and feel it passes GNG, and to help I will try to add appropriate refs. Cabrils (talk) 21:08, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McDermott (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

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

A semi-professional footballer that does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. I searched but could not find any better sources than the ones already in the article; I searched his name in connection with the clubs that he has been on the books of but found little more than name checks and routine coverage. Nothing found on ProQuest. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:39, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia West[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. At best may be a redirect to Years and Years (TV series) ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: see Wikipedia article It's a Sin (TV series) broadcast from 22 January 2021; in which Lydia West plays one of the two leads. If Lydia has played a leading role in two major TV drama series; she wouold appear to pass the tests for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. In my view. TomHennell (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see she hasn't played any lead role yet, so not passing NACTOR. She isn't one of the lead actors if what I see in It's a Sin (TV series) is correct. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She absolutely is one of the leads in It's a Sin (TV series). She is billed as one of the leads in the main titles. I'm watching it now. It's about four gay men and a woman living together, and she plays the woman. In fact, she probably has more screen time than any of the individual men. She was also definitely one of the leads in Years and Years (TV series). That miniseries was a larger ensemble piece, but she has as much screen time there as any of the more well-known lead actors.Jamesluckard (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NACTOR. No major leading roles and a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is one of the five leads in It's a Sin (TV series) and she's described that way in the linked articles, of which there are many. Just look at the linked Elle article, where she's described as "the fifth main character." Jamesluckard (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets NACTOR per roles in Years and Years and It's a Sin. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this article does meet the NACTOR guidelines for her roles in Years and Years and It's a Sin - In It's a Sin she is one of the lead characters and IMDB shows her in all six episodes. An article in The Express newspaper, features her as one of four actors who they profile as the cast ^[1]. There is also an article from Grazia magazine profiling her as a break out star ^[2] and she is profiled as a star of It's a Sin in this article in UK magazine Gay Times. ^[3]Glennelliott1972 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NACTOR and likely WP:GNG too. She's playing one of the leading roles in what's probably the most talked-about British TV programme of 2021. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m reading about her now in British Vogue and that’s good enough for me. Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said - not only has she played a leading role in Its a Sin, but also in Years and Years which was broadcast in 2019. She recently had a write up in Grazia ^[4] in which she is named as a "one to watch" and a "breakout star" and Elle similarly published an article calling her the "star" of the TV series ^[5]Guyb123321 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s a sin is getting major coverage and she is along with it. Added to years and years and her career is taking off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notability - why hasn’t this been concluded yet? Obscurasky (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. She's had two supporting roles in major TV shows. The coverage is on the celebrity side, but as long as it's siginficant it doesn't make about the tone. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:Entertainer. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:34, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti Region Music Awards[edit]

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

This article has been sitting at the back of the NPP queue for a month. I guess many patrollers have looked at it but no-one is comfortable passing it. Bringing it to AfD for a consensus. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ceremony was developed by a company called 3D Events Management, as seen in one of the article's sources. Their motives may be pure or not, but that company appears to be the source of all of the event's appearances in supposed "news" sources, which are clearly retreads of press releases. The event has not generated reliable coverage in its own right, and it fails all the requirements at WP:EVENT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Loudly echoing the rationale of Doomsdayer520. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 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 no consensus. That is, there is consensus to not delete the article, but no consensus about whether to merge it (or where to). This can be further discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 15:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Coke button[edit]

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

I don't think this warrants a whole article, per WP:GNG. I suggest merging it with either Oval Office, Resolute Desk, or Presidency of Donald Trump. ChipotleHater (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ChipotleHater (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page is well sourced and provides an "inside baseball" look at an interesting desk-accessory used by a U.S. president. Nothing wrong with keeping interesting articles on minor yet notable topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there was a brief discussion about including this button in the Resolute desk article a few days ago. We landed on not including it but just ever so slightly. With all the additional cites here I could see it being a merge of a few sentences into Resolute desk now but am on the fence about that vs leaving it as a stand alone article. Basically I feel if we had more info on the button and its use in other administrations I'd be happy to keep it as a second article. If it is really just a Trump or Trump and Obama thing it may be better served in the article about the desk.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I just dug up images of the button on the desk under Obama, W. Bush, and Clinton. They can be found here. --Found5dollar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good finds. With these new additions worked in the page could be a fuller history of this interesting feature used by at least four presidents. Since all four used the Resolute desk, a mention there would be a good addition and link to this fuller page. Sometimes little things fill in the patterns of history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(d) per WP:TRUMPNOT, good god we don't need articles for every mundane little thing. I've added a paragraph (and one of the pictures) about the button to Resolute desk#Presidential desk. The idea this should be a stand-alone article is absolutely preposterous. Just because it "is well sourced" it does not need its own page, just because it's WP:INTERESTING does not mean it should have its own page. We can cover sourced, interesting topics in main articles in context! Additional information can still be added to Resolute desk#Presidential desk or Oval Office (which also has fine coverage of the much-better-discussed furniture and artwork) much more approprately than this. Reywas92^Talk 04:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is very well sourced. Quoting two essays doesn't negate that. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is??? I'm not trying to negate the fact there are sources, even if there were a thousand sources, when the content that we can write from them is limited to something trivial that can be adequately written in another page, it should be merged. Reywas92^Talk 09:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of the reasons to delete or merge brought up are irrelevant as this meets GNG. SK2242 (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you haven't read the rest of WP:N, because passing GNG does not mandate a separate article and does not forbid merging content.
Merge - it meets GNG but not all things that meet GNG have their own pages. A neologism (it was not called this despite existing in prior administrations) for a button on a desk should be part of either the desk's page if it's interesting because it's part of the desk, or part of the Trump administration's many pages if it's interesting because it was yet another wacky thing Trump did.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What a frivolous article. I'd say WP:NOTNEWS applies but not quite sure it does, but really just seems like one of those stories that gains a bunch of coverage because it's Trump and it's also ridiculous (imagine that). JayJay^{What did I do?} 09:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an intercom that presidents have used to direct the household staff of the White House. It's not really ridiculous, although the press coverage of it (and ipso facto our coverage) makes it look so. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - why on Earth does this have an article? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I strongly back up what Seagull123 says. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because the topic is somewhat humorous doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. It's received significant sustained coverage and should be kept. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it now has a small paragraph and picture in Resolute desk (see above). Sciencefish (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it should, as a related topic and link. Doesn't mean that the page on the notable well-sourced topic is then null and void, but just that it is noted on other pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is informative, well-cited, and interesting. Any delete votes really just seem to find it too silly, yet I'll remind that there's scores of articles on Pokémon anime, and worse. No, this article won't do as a mention in Resolute desk. People won't care to read about it there, and it barely relates at all to the history and design of the famous work. It's much more relevant to Donald Trump's public image now, as well as his personal health. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because there are silly Pokemon articles doesn't mean we should tolerate silly articles elsewhere. If I see those articles I'll suggest to merge/delete them too.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above reasons. Sliekid (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, and also because although there are sources about it (which seem to be fairly in depth) - and so I don't think there shouldn't be any mention of it anywhere in Wikipedia - I just don't think that giving it its own article is appropriate, for a mixture of reasons #3 and #4 at WP:MERGEREASON: the article is unlikely to get any longer than it is now, and it is given much more context if merged into Resolute desk. Seagull123 Φ 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that we have no actual indication of whether this button existed even as recently as George W. Bush indicates that it is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert:We actually do have a ref for it existing in the George W. Bush presidency. It just hasn't been folded in to the article yet.[1] --Found5dollar (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which does not at all change the fact that it is a super trivial thing and none of the coverage rises about passing news filler items, or POV-pushing biases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand I think what likely makes the most sense is to expand the article to encompass all presidential call buttons, not just this one. while I was digging around trying to find info on this specific button I found that Johnson had a call button that would say when his wife was approaching, other presidents had issues of their children pressing the call buttons at meetings, and Obama had many different call buttons in different offices. I think this expanded topic has merit with the specific "Diet Coke" button being one of many through out the history of the presidency. --Found5dollar (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I started the article and at the time I started it, I didn't know that the button was used by (at least) three former presidents. Victor Grigas (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand Merge would be OK if there were a suitable page to merge the article with. However the object of the article should be about the button, not just its recent use by President Trump. None of the proposed pages for merge appears to be suitable. Not Presidency of Donald Trump: It has been used by at least 3 other presidents, and visitors to the Oval Office have been worried that it might be the nuclear button, not just during Trump's tenure. Not the Resolute Desk: It has not always been on the Resolute Desk, and even if it had, it is not part of the Desk. Not the Oval Office: The button has been used in rooms other than the Oval Office, for example President Obama used it at least once in the Oval Office Dinning Room, which is a separate room. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This approach (also suggested by Found5dollar), seems right. The button (or the practice of having a button, as it seems likely the physical object has changed over time) seems both interesting and notable, unlike each specific use; there's no need for one "Diet Coke button" article, one "Approaching-wife button" article, one article for whatever Biden is now using it for, and the like. Perhaps this could be renamed Oval Office call button or similar, with space given to each president/use as appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand as above, but I'd add WP:NOTPAPER as an argument against the suggestions that this should not be included as it's "mundane" or "frivolous". Expanding into the button's use by other presidents counters these suggestions too. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can't believe I didn't put this together earlier, but LBJ had 4 buttons, or keys, in the Oval Office for beverages; Coffee, Tea, Coke, and Fresca. This button isn't even the first soda button in the office. The article should be expanded in scope and kept.[2] --Found5dollar (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Donald Trump Coke Button is interesting enough to warrant its own article. Other "frivolous presidential buttons" could also be referenced on this page without renaming it. If we proceed with deletion, then I suggest a Redirect to Resolute desk which already contains a paragraph describing the button. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand This is exactly the type of article that people come to Wikipedia for. A well-sourced article on a little known but fascinating subject. Thriley (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep this. It is an interesting article. Super Virginian (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and expand per reasons listed above (by Found5dollar, Tango Mike Bravo, etc.). Could easily be renamed to "Oval Office call button" and expanded to that scope. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:30, 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. Hut 8.5 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi Niv[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only one source, which is about his relationship with Larry King. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The COI editor Paulmic28 who created the article just blanked the page which I reverted, since it had been extensively modifed from its original fluff piece form into an article that is overall negative in tone. The original page had only two article citations (and one youtube video), which were just passing mentions in articles about a visit by Naomi Campbell to Israel. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS PAGE NOW OR I WILL SEEK LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WIKIPEDIA AND YOU (Hemiauchenia) SPECIFCALLY. I AM THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS PAGE AND THE PHOTO THAT WAS UPLOADED TO THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE BELONGS TO ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmic28 (talk • contribs)

Paulmic28 has been blocked for making legal threats. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hemiauchenia: I added some references that I found online.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamboat2020: At least 2 of those were reprints of PRNewswire (with identical titles to boot), a source of self-published press releases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I didnt realize that 2 of the references come from the same source but I still belive there was enough coverage to establish notability. Also the passing mention of him in articles about a visit by Naomi Campbell to Israel which (was cited in the original version and) you correctly objected to, nevertheless, refer to him as one of the "notables". --Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently neutral on deletion after the addition of more sources, I still think the notability case is marginal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is not enough to meet GNG. press-releases do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is more about his more famous partner than him. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage about them by themselves. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the references are about Larry King not independent coverage of Jacobi Niv - and Jacobi Niv is not mentioned in the Larry King article - does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a single decent source for Niv, ~~I did some expansion~~ assuming more would appear. It hasn't. I'm unsure if it's about someone desperate to gain notability or to avoid notability, but if it ever qualifies, WP:REFUND will be helpful. tedder (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: Huh? You have no edits in the article history. The one who did the major restructuring of the article from a promotional article to one sourced around the ProPublica piece was Sowny, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of Nixon Now in October. Unless you are suggesting that you are Sowny? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I wrote notes locally, then realized it was already integrated in the article. Misremembered why I followed the article, added strikethrough in my original comment. tedder (talk) 22:45, 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. Hut 8.5 08:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Hadar[edit]

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

He's a non-notable kickboxer. He doesn't meet any of the kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK and my search failed to turn up multiple independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of him, so WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are not met. The article itself has nothing but a link to his own website. Being the youngest to sign with Glory does not show notability (even if true), especially when he lost his first two fights and is no longer with the organization. The AFC (whatever that stands for) is not a notable kickboxing organization and since all the fights took place in Austria it may well mean that the A stands for Austria (in which case the claim of being a "world champion" looks even weaker). He's young so he may become notable, but that's a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL and this article is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is a famous kickbox talent in Holland with more socialmedia followers than the most fighter with a wiki page. He is returning this year to Glory, so he definetly deserves a wiki page. We could add sources but deletion is no good option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.2.195 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a new and currently blocked user, but you should realize that merely fighting for Glory does not indicate WP notability. The number of social media followers also has no impact on notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they were an actual notable kick boxzer, we would have multiple reliable source indepth cases of coverage. That is what we need to justify an article, not just empty assertions that the individual is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NKICK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 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 keep. Consensus is that he has played in enough first-class matches and therefore he meets notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ross (cricketer)[edit]

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

No notable coverage found about him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCIRC having played in eight matches for Cambridge Uni. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet NCRIC, which states "highest international or domestic level"; university matches fall below that standard (and as such no longer enjoy FC status). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have FC status from this year onwards, but held that status until 2020. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this clearly explained anywhere Lugnuts? Does this need to be explained more clearly elsewhere? Bobo . 18:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go @Bobo192:, there is your reference. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I wasn't doubting, it's just that so many lies get passed around here at the moment that you feel you don't know things anymore... Bobo . 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost as if my edits are being stalked. Actually, university matches around this time were still of sufficient standard - there's no presumption of quality in FC status, it is what it is, first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these matches counted as first-class matches at the time - this status presumably cannot and will not be reversed retroactively. Bobo . 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The FC status of these matches is not in question, and is irrelevant for a guideline which states "highest... level" (NOTE: the guideline does not state all first-class matches meet this definition and CRIN explains clearly that is not what is meant). I see no sources to support these matches as being the highest level; indeed at this time (as now) they were largely viewed as practice matches and a means of university players gaining experience against higher standard opposition. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stopped reading after the first bit which showed the AfD nomination was completely pointless. Perhaps next time people think about sending things to AfD they will make sure we can find sources first. That would take even less effort than the people in question finding the sources themselves! Bobo . 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with exclusionism y'see. People making up rules as they go along. Bobo . 18:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. It is not reasonable to expect someone who has searched and been unable to find sources (per BEFORE) to find them before nominating. What would be helpful, it if those creating these articles found the sources first (if they exist, which seems unlikely here). The same applies to those blindly saying we should keep such articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already did find the sources. If you doubt the fact that we did, then it's not our fault. If you can help out, please do. If you're talking about sourcing articles, there are much more high-profile players whose articles need to be "sourced" appropriately. Why can't we work on those instead? Bobo . 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All articles "need to be sourced appropriately". We should not ignore inadequately sourced articles because the subject is relatively obscure; we should attempt to locate sources for them, and if they cannot be found, the article should be deleted or an alternative option found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can help out, please do. Our project could greatly benefit from people who are willing to help out. Bobo . 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could help out by participating on these AFDs and attempting to locate sources. Is is disheartening to think that some believe sourcing outside of cricinfo/cricketarchive databases is unnecessary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you were willing to try the other way around, then we might take the effort to hack our project down seriously... As I say, I didn't bother reading after the bit where you said the AfD nomination was pointless. Bobo . 19:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First-class cricketer playing eight matches. Five Test players in the opposition for his first match, six for his second... of course these were games at the highest domestic level. Johnlp (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players; per my comments above, and despite protestations and claims to the contrary (strength of the opposition is irrelevant), none these matches were the "highest international or domestic level", so this does not meet NCRIC. In addition, even if NCRIC were met, the presumption of notability afforded by that guideline is extremely weak (confirmed by the consensus of successive discussions at NSPORT and countless AFDs, as can easily be seen from the cricket delsort archive); NSPORT also does not supersede GNG. We ultimately require substantial coverage in reliable sources to confirm notability, and there is none. All we have (and all I can find) are wide ranging databases, scorecards and the occasional incidental mention in a match report. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"none these matches were the ""highest international or domestic level""" Incorrect. They were bestowed with first-class status, therefore they were at the highest domestic level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. "First-class" does not (automatically) equal "highest level". This has been endlessly discussed and is readily apparent from the first-class criteria. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are the one who is wrong here. First-class is the highest level, otherwise these matches would have the status of "other" on cricket records. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"First class in name only" has been a common phrase over the years. But I know why you are taking this position, and also know that you don't believe it, so won't waste time arguing. In addition, whether he trivially passes/fails a weak SNG is a smokescreen, the real issue is the lack of GNG level coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless substantial coverage can be found. Fram (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete showing up in a publication that is merely a complete list is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the matches wasn't first class and I would say delete but as the universities matches did have first class until 2020 then this should be kept. HawkAussie (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCIRC as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree with the above that the matches he played in were counted as first class at the time and thus it seems he qualifies under current rules set out by WP:NCRIC. Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 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. In the sense of "do not delete". The deletion rationale does not make much sense in terms of our inclusion policies. A merger can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran[edit]

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

This is a subject made up by some American/Israel "thing-tanks" (or "stink-tanks", as they are known in the Arab world): does not deserve the hype Huldra (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bordering on, if not actual synth, there is little evidence of an "alliance", even unofficially. Even if some countries have interests that coincide in one or more respects that does not mean that an alliance exists. If there were meetings, statements or joint actions being taken, maybe then. It is not even obvious which countries might be part of said alliance, editors keep adding countries and taking them out. The reuters source is given as implying that US is nurturing this alliance but the Warsaw meeting was intended to gather broad international consensus against Iran and failed to do so, the EU did not attend for example. This is better handled in the myriad of existing articles (per see also list and there are others).Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This is an actual alliance as the four recent Arab states to normalize relations with Israel have been deterred in part by Iran's action in war-torn countries (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq), but another factor is the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is driving these countries to oppose both forces and decide among themselves whether or not to join with Israel in the anti-Iran coalition. After all, Iran backs more militias and armed groups in the war-torn nations in contrast to anybody else in the region. And the Abraham Accords are part of the growing Arab-Israeli alliance after the failed Warsaw convention as the solution is now to normalize ties with Israel as a deterrent without fighting a war, proxy wars, or continuing the proxy wars as they are currently being fought. The Arab states are realizing that Israel isn't really their enemy as they have believed for the past sixty years or so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First: the Emirates/Saudis supported the insurrection in Syria long before the Russians/Iranians got involved. Same in Yemen; the Saudis (and UAE) started the bombing, (thinking it would be a "cake-walk"). Iraq and Libya was first destroyed (on false intelligence) by the West/Nato.

And independent researchers show that less than 10% of the Arab population wants "normalisation" with Israel (even in Jordan; where the number is about 6 %(!)). The "Abraham Accords" is basically between Israel and a bunch of corrupt, kleptocratic dictators; (something the NYT will never tell you.), Huldra (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the cold peace that exists in Egypt after the signing of the Camp David Accords and the following formal treaty from how the majority of the Arabs in the country felt about the warming of ties with Israel, but your point of view of wanting to delete this article possibly stems from a bias, most likely anti-Israeli, which alone isn't enough to justify the deletion of this article. The sources used in the article are credible and if you can find sources from your own research that can support your claim that no such alliance against Iran exists it would be greatly appreciated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with WikiCleanerMan--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above explained. Sliekid (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep My position on this proposal is clearly established. I request this AFD discussion be closed with Keep being the result since the delete side haven't provided sources to support their stance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK except that there is no supporting evidence that this so called alliance even exists. It's a fairy story.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source if you can. Thank you. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to me to prove that this "alliance" doesn't exist, I only need to show that the sources given in the article do not prove that it does exist. Firstly, when did it come into existence, if it did? Two of the sources point to the 2006 Lebanon war as a possible start point but these two sources don't say who the members were, in fact all of the sources, 10 of them (several are not really rs) just have vague statements about Sunni Arab states or Gulf States ( plus Jordan + Egypt??). Of course it is true that there is a group of states that dislike Iran (monarchies at risk, nuclear weapon, etcetera) but it's a step from there to an "alliance". It is also an open secret that there have been ties on the quiet between Israel and some Arab states for a long time and now there are not so quiet normalization agreements, of which UAE seems the most progressed for now (note not with Saudi, Oman or Kuwait). If we are to accept that this alliance has existed since 2006, then why cannot we see a source clearly setting out, the when it was formed, who are it's members (Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and Kuwait were in the list and taken out on 4 January?? Before that, the US and Sudan were shown in the list as members.), what are it's goals, when do they meet and what actions have they specifically taken (none at all as far as I can see, it's all blah blah.) The best you could say about some grouping of Gulf/Sunni states/Israel and possibly the US is there is a confluence of interest in restraining Iran but even now, it seems that the new US admin is willing in principle to reenter the Iran nuclear deal even if they will consult with this coalition of the disaffected.Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Foreign relations of Israel. At this point in time, there is not enough material about this supposed "alliance." ImTheIP (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The article is very short and can be incorporated into Foreign relations of Israel or the Arab–Iranian conflict.--Sakiv (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone please provide sources? Evidence that contradicts ones cited in the article? Saying to delete and/or merge isn't enough. Please provide evidence of the alleged non-existence of this alliance. And Selfstudier, if you're going to be one of the people calling for the deletion of this article, then you should provide evidence. Then what is the point in calling yourself a self studier if you aren't going to be providing research to your claims other than just a vague statement of what purports to be anti-Israeli bias? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WikiCleanerMan: you do know you only get one vote, right? Since you have now voted three times, I have struck the first and the most recent. To repeat myself, asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is asking for the proof of a negative,do look it up. The onus is on you to show why it should be kept and the sources are hopelessly insufficient. I would also remind you of WP:NPA. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack and you haven't been able to prove anything. But to prove such an alliance exists since you won't prove your claims yourself here is an article worth reading Donald Trump's New World Order. As for the onus, both sides have to prove their arguments using evidence. The three calling for deletion haven't added any facts, just anti-Israeli bias, which is no justification for deletion as editors have to be neutral regardless of their viewpoints. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything in the article that supports the existence of an alliance between Israel and the Arab states, official or otherwise. It seems that this Wikipedia article is mostly based on speculation. Therefore, its contents should be merged into the existing article about Israel's foreign relations. ImTheIP (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy reason was given for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Meet WP:GNG --Shrike (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely discussed axis of diplomacy/military, easily meets GNG. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored the improperly removed more citations required tag since citations are still needed, no source evidence for this grouping exists, see my additional comments at the article talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The article have one of the worst names I have read in WP in a long time, just add it to Foreign relations of Israel or the Arab–Iranian conflict like Sakiv said.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It will help those calling for the article to be redirected or deleted should take the time to read the sources provided in the article. And for those that keep removing information should stop. You are not helping your cause. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 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 speedy deleted by User:Sphilbrick via WP:G12. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Rae Allan[edit]

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

No indication that subject of the article satisfies WP:GNG, furthermore as a business man he doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 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 Draftify. There's consensus that this is not yet suitable for the articlespace, but that the topic has potential and may become notable in the future. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Newman (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY (only a bench appearance for Dundee) and WP:GNG (non-significant and trivial coverage). I would suggest moving it to the draftspace as it is relatively well-developed, as to publish it once he becomes notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per nom. It's a decent well developed article, and can go back to mainspace once the subject makes a first-team appearance. In future, it might be worth suggesting such a course of action to the creator before going to AfD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's perfectly fine to ask the creator to move the page to the draftspace? And then I would have to nominate the redirect to the draft for speedy deletion, right? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's fine to ask, so long as you explain why you're asking. And if they agree, you just tag the redirect for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#R2. Cross-namespace redirects. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got it, thanks. Next time I'll keep this in mind. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - it looks like the article was originally in draft, looking at the history. Since he is on the books of a top tier Scottish side, it's not unreasonable to believe that he might be notable in the near future but clearly does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL yet Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - as suggested above seems fair and a good way forward. He has been on the bench this season, but has yet to make a first team appearance for Dundee United (or any other side), so does not meet NFOOTBALL yet. However he may well do in the future given his international record at age group levels and so then would be the time for an article. As this actually is a well put together article it would be fine for it to be used if and when he does meet GNG or NFOOTBALL. Dunarc (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Full-fledged deletion seems undescribed under the circumstances. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:05, 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. Closed by another admin as G7 Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Iling Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. He has only played at youth level (for both club and country). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the page, we can move into the draft space Dr Salvus (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not yet notable 17-year-old football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dr Salvus (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 23:40, 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Hope[edit]

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

~~Entirely unsourced~~ BLP where subject herself appears to have written majority of the content in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. ~~Likely fails WP:NPROF and WP:NMUSIC.~~ Appears to be textbook case of WP:NOTCV. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the sources which were surfaced below, as well as improvements to sourcing to the article since this nomination, I withdraw claims of "unsourced" and "lack of notability". I am even tempted to withdraw the nomination entirely, but the promotional language inserted by the subject still seems to be a notable problem to me. Maybe draftify? Or delete without prejudice for recreation? I'm really not sure. Melmann 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, I intend to continue working on it. Your major remaining criticism appears to be content-related: specifically the lack of NPOV via the earlier COI contributions. I am willing to reduce these non-encyclopaedic and promotional sections.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done my bit. I believe it is more neutral and better sourced. Some content from COI contributor remains at about 10% but its tone has been checked by me to reduce promotional and unencyclopaedic tone. I'm moving on.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The claim that she was head of the school gave me pause, but based on Google Scholar [3] she will fail WP:NPROF and WP:NMUSIC. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple-award winner per this, articles about or by artist here, 62 works by artist here. She was the featured subject of a broadcasts on ABC radio per 1, 2, 3, 4. The wp article certainly has issues both COI and poor and/or self-citing but the subject is nevertheless notable according to WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)11:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning two APRA Art Music Awards makes her notable enough for me. Boneymau (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Actually she has won three: 2011, 2014 and 2020 (latter shared).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above 2 keep votes. Awards are significant and meet the requirements of music bio guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A review of the sources cited and awards won indicate that this is a notable subject. These are enough to at least pass GNG. Luciapop (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO have been met thanks to the improvements to the article that were made by Shaidar cuebiyar WP:HEY. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with extra content supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed. Also she has won multiple notable awards so that WP:NMUSIC is also passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, now meets WP:MUSICBIO. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 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. Sandstein 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attic Theory[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. I am unable to find significant discussion of the band in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable, although I have removed one of the more absurd assertions in the piece. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- I do believe this should NOT be deleted as Attic Theory are an award winning notable band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrhanky1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Setreis (talk) 17:45, 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. Hut 8.5 08:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards[edit]

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

Not a significant award show; most of the article is a list of people; see WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTWEBHOST. Few 3rd party refs; page creator/major contributor appears to be a advert-only account (paid?). GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks coverage in third party media.. Fails WP:GNG. Agree with the nom. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination and above comment. Setreis (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Perdigon[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and can not see any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR they meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an Assistant Professor with an h-index of 4, nothing to indicate passing WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly not notable, article reads like a prose version of his CV.8JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very flowery language for not much substance. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=uE0LPfkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao is fairly low numbers, and no other evidence of passing WP:NPROF at the moment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Fail to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR --Kemalcan (talk) 10:29, 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 Marcus Furius Camillus (consul AD 8). Because the contents have been merged (without proper attribution), the history should not be deleted in order to preserve this attribution. Sandstein 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Furius Camillus (II)[edit]

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

Identical with Marcus Furius Camillus (consul AD 8). Avilich (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge - identical subject, although I must admit, it seems this one is better written than Marcus Furius Camillus (consul AD 8). If nobody objects, I'll do a non-admin close and merge the articles per wp:duplicate. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx: I already merged the content of the articles, all that remains is for someone to delete it. This one is poorly written too, it just sounds better than the other because I pasted the content from this one onto the other so I could delete this as quickly as possible. Do a non-admin delete closure instead. Avilich (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion outright might be overkill. Since everything has been merged from this article to the other, converting this one to a redirect would be quicker & require less effort. (Although there are few articles that link to this one, & they could be redirected to Marcus Furius Camillus (consul AD 8).) -- llywrch (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
already done that too. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once all the incoming links are redirected. If it were a plausible variation, I would keep it as a redirect; but it's not. Romans didn't use iterations this way, and modern sources only add them in ways that make it clear they're only being used to distinguish between homonymous individuals, and not as part of their names. The only reason anyone would use this link—apart from editors who know of an article's existence at this title—is because it occurs in the search window, so it can safely be deleted. Anyone typing the name will find one of the persons who does have an article, and those articles can mention homonymous individuals as necessary and appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once all the incoming links are redirected, per above Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliekid (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is cheap and harmless. No objection to deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 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, but I will userfy it as Gabinho requested. This shouldn't be moved back to mainspace without better evidence that the subject passes the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 08:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoș Lucan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRU; has only played 2nd tier in Romania, which is not fully professional, even the first tier is not listed there currently. No senior caps either. My WP:BEFORE yielded only this, which is just a repost of one of the sources already linked on the article. This is not enough for WP:GNG as he does not have the significant coverage required in multiple sources to demonstrate that he warrants a stand-alone article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NRU and WP:GNG per nomination. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I request userfication for this article. Can anyone help me do this? (Gabinho^>:) 13:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This should be fine. I think an admin, when closing this, can then move the content to User:Gabinho/Dragoș Lucan if preferred Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 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 merge to USS Brock (APD-93). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Brock[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Brock (APD-93). fails WP:SOLDIER (having a ship named after a Navy Cross recipient during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not go through all of these nominations, but what if we merge and redirect them collectively into an article titled List of American military personnel for whom World War II warships were named? BD2412 T 05:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Brock (APD-93). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we an probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Brock (APD-93), as per above. Sliekid (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Brock (APD-93), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Brock (APD-93)#Construction and commissioning, where hardly any info on him is currently included. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 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 USS Brister. Editors have discretion what content to merge to the new target article from page history. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Brister[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Brister. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign lost at sea having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Brister. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Brister per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Brister, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Brister. Clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSOLDIER. And there is really nothing to merge. This is a perfect example of why having a ship named after you is not a sign of notability, but simply a result politicking. Any man/woman who serves their country's armed forces is to be lauded, but this man simply died during that service. Tragic, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Brister, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Robert Brazier. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boyd Brazier[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States). Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Robert Brazier. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Aviation Radioman awarded one DFC. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Robert Brazier. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Robert Brazier, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Robert Brazier, there is a line or two which could be added to the ship article, but definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Robert Brazier, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 2 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 USS Borum (DE-790). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Borum[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Borum (DE-790). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg with no significant award. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Borum (DE-790). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Borum (DE-790) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having one of roughly 500 destroyer escorts built named after you is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Borum (DE-790), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would have said merge, but there is really nothing to merge to USS Borum (DE-790), other than the sentence I just added. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If he's only notable for having a ship named after him,then a section in the ship article is much more suitable. Nigej (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Borum (DE-790), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Blue (DD-744). What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Blue[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Blue (DD-744). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR with no significant award. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Blue (DD-744). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Blue (DD-744) (very selectively) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the ship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Blue (DD-744), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to USS Blue (DD-744). Currently totally unsourced, and searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. But there is a line or two which could be added to the ship article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Blue (DD-744), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Blair. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Blair[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Blair. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Machinist's Mate awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Blair. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Blair (very selectively) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 05:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a significant honor when ships are coming out left, right and center with a view that all must be named after someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Blair, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (key word relevant) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, selectively, the material from the "Awarded Silver Star" section into USS Blair, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Blair, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:11, 2 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 USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219). Suitable content can be merged from history if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Douglas Blackwood[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained on many other AfDs, that's not how "a significant award or honor" works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And WP:Soldier. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not pass WP:SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Surgeon awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk)

03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge to USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an in line reference, which you apparently overlooked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually read User:Piotrus's argument. sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content... Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a ship named after you in the conditions in which this naming were done is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219), merging as necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219) and add any additional relevant information about Blackwood to the ship's article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS J. Douglas Blackwood (DE-219), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:19, 2 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 USS John M. Bermingham. Consensus was to redirect to the ship. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Bermingham[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John M. Bermingham. Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR awarded a posthumous Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS John M. Bermingham. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we an probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the ship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John M. Bermingham as the ships' namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS John M. Bermingham, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:10, 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 redirect to USS Begor. Concensus was to redirect. I've added pertinent info into target. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fay B. Begor[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Begor. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Begor. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a significant honor when ships are coming out left, right and center and there is a view that they all need to be named after someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Begor as the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Begor, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:10, 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 merge to USS Bebas. Consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, but the article content would improve the namesake ship's page. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gus George Bebas[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States). Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned everywhere else, this is not how "awards or honors" work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bebas. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a DFC. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Bebas. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (just the lead) to USS Bebas per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ship being named after you is not a significant honor if the ships are being churned out right, left and center with the added constraint that they must be named for someone on creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bebas as the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Bebas, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the info about his receiving the DFC into USS Bebas. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Bebas, fails GNG, only one source provides SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshitomi Hideaki[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BEFORE found nothing useful. Google search results in names unrelated to the article. Enjoyer of World — Talk 11:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing, there are no other language linked articles. While there are a list of reference, there is no indication of what references should support what content. Jeepday (talk) 12:11, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources used are largely primary. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:54, 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 USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124). Consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, but the article content would improve the namesake ship's page, which doesn't talk about Bass's accomplishments at all. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horace A. Bass Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering the level of mass production of ships going on at the time and other factors, having a ship named after you in this time period is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content on why he received his award into USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124). Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article, and clearly doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Horace A. Bass (APD-124), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Bangust. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bangust[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bangust. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Aviation Machinist mate 2nd class posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Bangust. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergable content here (but unfortunately not footnoted). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Bangust, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into USS Bangust, not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Bangust, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Baker (DE-190). Consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, but the article content would improve the namesake ship's page, which has the bare minimum about Baker. What content to merge is left to editor discretion. Even the keep !votes agree that one of the primary claims to notability is getting a ship named after him. The keep !votes are generic and do not address the content/sourcing of the article in question.

For transparency, I'm counting the last two redirect !votes, which apparently got confused by which AfD it was. This confusion arose because of the previous keep !vote copy pasting a large amount of text from the wrong AfD that I removed right before closing this AfD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Drayton Baker[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Baker (DE-190). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Baker (DE-190). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to USS Baker (DE-190). Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. I would say merge, but all pertinent info from this article is already included in the target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 02:47, 2 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. Tone 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Star[edit]

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

Non notable singer who falls short of WP:SINGER and generally doesn’t satisfy our general or basic criteria for inclusion. This source almost looks but unfortunately it was written by a guest editor hence isn't to be considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a teen-aged singer who does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I tend to support inclusion for the "win, place, show" in a reality TV show or major musical contest; in this case, she came in 5th. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 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. Tone 22:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Granger[edit]

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

The article is based on the subject's personal website and a re-hash of one of her videos. I can find no indication that reliable coverage exists on her. There is this article from the unreliabel news provider The Tab. The article, a copy paste job from one of it's sources, could be speedily deleted under G12 but I thought I'd take this to AfD over the subject's falling short of WP:GNG/WP:ENTERTAINER Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, No independent coverage whats so ever. The subject in question is not notable enough to have a standalone page on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Enviable study habits", please... Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49419641 and https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/study-tubers-meet-the-new-teen-vlogging-stars-of-youtube-9nnp8v99n/ seems to be a bit of coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for this. These pieces are both clearly significant coverage in reliable sources. Independence seems to be the problem: I think the BBC piece is too heavily based off direct quotations from the subject to be regarded as independent, while the Times article seems to be just fine. Overall, this still doesn't seem enough for clear-cut notable; though these pieces point to there being potential for it in the future. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are on a level that would lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes (we tend to be strict on YouTubers), and WP:GNG ( she hasn't really done anything notable, other than to be another WP:UPANDCOMING teenager). Bearian (talk) 19:37, 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. Tone 22:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moko Koza[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Every single source used in the article is either self published or a pr sponsored post . All awards won are non notable. A before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. This source however looks decent but isn’t enough to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. All the coverage seems to be local or from fan webpages, none of which are reliable. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 13:19, 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. Tone 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boursorama[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable company and article seems promo to an extent. Akronowner (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. « Not a notable company ». This is the first French financial technology company, like Revolut in UK : https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/comment-boursorama-est-devenue-la-banque-en-ligne-preferee-des-francais_18157 ; « Article seems promo ». 95% of the article talk about the History of the company. I am surprised. RutoSu (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not citing third-party RS coverage here - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - RS coverage appears to be lightly-churned press releases (when it isn't a broken link). Appears to be a promotional article, much as it was last time this was deleted. No coverage that meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also suggest that, should the article be deleted, the closing admin salt the article name - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and nom. In 2007, "like" could have been excused as a reason for inclusion, but in 2021, everybody knows what Wikipedia does not include. There's a single citation to a reliable source, Le Monde, but that is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 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. Tone 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Nervo[edit]

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

Kept in 2009 due to Croatian language sources existing. They do. However our notability guidelines since then have changed and the sources mentioned in the AfD, which were mostly press releases and forum discussions, do not rise to the level of significant, in-depth coverage that are required for notability.This appears to be the best source and is not enough and search indicates nothing new since then as he may have retired. . He needs to meet that as there's no athletic guideline he meets. NB no article in Croatian wikipedia to use for sourcing help either. StarM 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka nervo StarM 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've performed a search of Croatian sources (I'm Croatian speaker) and only non-trivial coverage I could find is this interview in regional/city newspaper. It also mentions that he was a Croatian champion in 125HP class, which may qualify him under WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 3. There are also trivial mentions in the most popular Croatian daily (Jutarnji). Despite that, I am still personally erring on the side of delete as non-notable.Melmann 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that sources exist is not enough to provide notability. They need to pass the guidelines contained in GNG, and per the analysis of the nominator the sourcing we have does not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sung Kuo-ting[edit]

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

After observing it had been flagged for notability concerns, I performed a WP:BEFORE search which reveals subject of the article falls short of WP:GNG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & fail to satisfy WP:NPOL Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Overall it fails the WP:GNG. STSC (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county council members are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie — making a person notable for this requires evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm, not just verification that he exists. But the sources here aren't doing that: one is Facebook, which is not a notability-supporting or reliable source at all; one is a simple directory list, which is not a notability-supporting source at all; and the two that come from actual media just namecheck his existence without being about him to any non-trivial degree, so that isn't enough to make him more notable than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Local politicians, unless they are of world class city governments, are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 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 redirect to Branko Miljković#Legacy. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Nothing[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE. Tagged for notability since January 2018. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No GNG support was found. Kolma8 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Branko Miljković. I have just merged two useful sentences from this article, so it can be redirected to Branko Miljković#Legacy. I agree that the film has no particular notability in broader context. No such user (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NSU. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Branko Miljković#Legacy - the pertinent info has already been added to the target by No such user. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Branko Miljković – film has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources - does not meet WP:NFILM – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 21:41, 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 keep. Editors expressed concerns about the lack of online sources, but there was a rough consensus that the subject's appearance in the Women's Tennis Association tour met the relevant notability guideline. No delete !votes after being relisted and open for a few weeks. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Pajalič[edit]

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

Not enough sources to satisfy notability. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might scrape through WP:NTENNIS with the one ITF win. I was thinking of nominating Ekaterina Dranets for similar reasons but I think that any player that has played on the WTA Tour, even if only once, is inherently notable. Not 100% sure, though, and it's hard to find previous similar tennis AfDs as we don't have a sorting category for them. Spiderone 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you nominated the article Petra Pajalič for deletion, however I don't think that it should be deleted. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments in doubles competition at the 2007 Banka Koper Slovenia Open.There multiple references that include primary sources, and all of the information is true and accurate. Vecihi91 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her WTA appearance is what gets her over the WP:NTENNIS line, not her ITF $10k win. Sources are likely to be found in Slovenian sources, but sadly these do not appear to be easily accessible online. Iffy★Chat -- 13:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As current sources doesn't indicate passing WP:GNG. But as mentioned above that if more sources can be found and added it may meet GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as it meets NTENNIS, just. I don't like that we have to use her Linkedin page as seemingly the only source of any biographical info on her but, from an internet search, I can't see that there are any alternative sources that could be used. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NTENNIS due her debut at the WTA Tour. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect per WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A-Reece Discography[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication of content already at A-Reece. Redundant content fork. The A-Reece article is so short and the discography is not so large that it requires splitting from the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to A-Reece#Discography, where the content already exists. Please don't bring WP:SPLIT/subtopic issues to AFD where there is an obvious editing solution. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Reece#Discography. The previous voter could teach rather than browbeat good-faith colleagues about lesser-known procedures. Anyway, no need for an unnecessary split of such a short discography that is little more than a basic list back at the musician's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the others, and close early. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually Draft:A-Reece Discography, which shows more content than the article itself. I can't find any sources for those EPs though and not sure if they're actually notable enough. Should we copy the content from the draft over? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person who created the draft could be encouraged to do that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the EPs are notable if we're not talking about a standalone article for them, instead just an entry, and discographies for notable artists should be comprehensive. Like any work, whether a book, film, or recording, the EPs either exist or they don't and are reliable sources for their own content. And their existence is easy to verify (e.g., here for even the one described as "self-published"). postdlf (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtik[edit]

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

Article that has been unsourced and orphaned for almost 15 years(!). Full of WP:OR "The word kirtik is most probably derived from..." failing both WP:V and WP:GNG. Possibly WP:MADEUP too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably does have references/rules online, not seeing anything when I look. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing what makes this game notable. Śources not found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and the fact that it is the name of a penalty in a card game, so should be in that article, not a separate one. Nigej (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has never published original research nor synthesis. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Reasons[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by any means, it's claim of the first zero budget horror film is not supported by any reliable source, does not meet any criteria laid out at WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing popped out on my search other than this [[4]]. Kolma8 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I improved the article some, but I couldn't find enough to justify it passing NFILM. If there were more coverage or some reviews then that would help, but this doesn't seem to have gained that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:55, 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. Tone 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She (Maldoror album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable album by a non-notable band. The band's article (Maldoror) just got deleted because of the lack of reliable sourcing. The band had two notable members, yet they did not receive notable media coverage. Same could be said about the album. The only thing that establishes notability is an Allmusic review, and that's it. The rest of the results are the standard trash (you know, databases like discogs and rateyourmusic, youtube, streaming links like spotify, and retail sites). At first I thought this could make it, but the first sentence ("Ah sh.t, I forgot about this one") already proved me that this is not a professional review, and the rest of the text isn't any better either. So yeah, we only have one good source and that's not enough. Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:09, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to nominate this article for deletion but Ghost Destroyer beat me to it. Beyond the nominator's comments on sources, this can be considered a purely procedural nomination. That is because the album is now an orphan after the band's article was deleted a few days ago. I already tagged this album article for Speedy Deletion but it was turned down by an Admin because two notable people are on the album. Well that might make a difference in the Speedy Deletion process but the album remains non-notable in its own right and it is by a band that we have already decided is non-notable too. Meanwhile, I have added brief info about this album to the two musicians' pages, and that is all that Wikipedia needs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band itself is non-notable; the album doesn't warrant a standalone article given there is no significant coverage by multiple, reliable independent sources, except AllMusic. Ashley yoursmile! 07:55, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stephen (Canadian actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, "referenced" only to his IMDb profile with no evidence of coverage about him in reliable sources shown at all. The only notability claim really being attempted here is that he's had roles, but just listing roles isn't an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- the film roles listed are all supporting or bit parts, not main starring roles. The notability bar for actors is not "has been in stuff" (which would cover every actor who exists at all), but requires evidence of distinction, such as winning or being nominated for one or more major acting awards and/or receiving enough real media coverage about his performances to clear WP:GNG on his sourcing. This was also created by a WP:SPA with the username "Artisticdirector", suggesting the possibility of conflict of interest editing by the subject or a personal friend or colleague of his. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It’s only reference is to IMDb. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, searching does not reveal any news coverage for this actor. FozzieHey (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per accurate reasoning by nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are literally zero newspaper articles about this person. If it's the same guy, he has about 12,000 followers on Twitter, but I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Singh Gurjar[edit]

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

Two sources, none look that good.

Unnotalbe stub. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete freedom fighters are not notable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a quick search and can't see any way that this can pass WP:GNG.VocalIndia (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because you were a rebel who was hanged does not make you default notable. The sourcing does not actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 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. Tone 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotpack Packaging Industries LLC[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passes WP:NCORP. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not been added to any content categories yet. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. It makes boxes. Unless you're a domestic cat, who cares? Bearian (talk) 19:54, 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 redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. Consensus is to redirect, even after disclosure of the sockpuppetry by the nom. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monika (Doki Doki Literature Club!)[edit]

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

Aside from inspiring some Internet memes and being featured in Yandere Simulator, Monika lacks real world notability. Most of the "Development history" section just mentions the game's score, which would be more appropriate on the article about the game rather than a character from it. In addition, only one source mentions her being a meme, which isn't enough sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. How exactly is Monika notable outside of being featured as the main antagonist in one visual novel? ThisIsSparta2007 (talk) 10:37, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I think it's pretty bad faith for the nom to nominate this for AfD after the deletion discussion for Freddy Fazbear didn't seem to go their way. Regardless of that, the article is filled to the brim with cruft, relying largely on trivial mentions, in-game levels, and primary sources. Redirecting to the parent topic seems appropriate. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I'm a huge fan of DDLC, but as you have previously stated, this article has too much cruft and trivial mentions. The other three characters work fine as redirects to the game's page, and so does Monika. The game article covers enough information, with better sources, about Monika, and without the cruft this article has too. A redirect seems like the most logical option here. HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod is a confirmed sockpuppet of the nominator; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod. Mz7 (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club! per all aforementioned rationale. There's nothing worthwhile that could be gathered from this character that isn't already adequately stated in the game's article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I remember I tried to source this one months ago and I'm shocked there aren't more people talking about the writing in this game. But really most of the articles talk about the writing and character design more generally. I'm sure there is something to WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINT, bad faith nom. Additionally, the amount of coverage is enough to warrant an article, see Monika (Doki Doki Literature Club!) § Reception and analysis. The article is even somewhat close to being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Monika, imo. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Even if one would argue that [5] and [6] are significant coverage - plausible - the issue is whether they are reliable, and here I am afraid the answer is 'barely if at all'. There are few passing mentions in more reliable, scholarly sources like [7].Then there is a lengthy discussion at [8] which often mentions her but generally seems to be limited to a plot summary. I see enough mentions of the character in Google Scholar to think that there may be something more substantial out there, or that the combination of 10+ mentions in academic sources, plus the popcultural reception (memes etc.) in lower quality non-academic sources may be enough to give this one a pass. PS. My keep vote is nonetheless weak as I haven't found in-depth, reliable discussion of the character. If you think you did please ping me so I can review it and reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a procedural basis, per other users about the nominator's bad faith nomination. The nominator appears to be unfamiliar with the WP:GNG guideline and did not make the appropriate deletion argument for this AfD, instead relying on the argument that if Freddy Fazbear isn't notable, then so isn't Monika, or a nebulous and vague concept of "real world notability" when it is not proscribed or defined anywhere in the WP:N guideline. There is clearly significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, the popularity (or lack of or waning etc) of the game itself does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the character is notable or otherwise. Haleth (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep in light of the fact that the nominator is blocked due to a Checkuser confirmation provided by Mz7 that they have engaged in sockpuppetry, and one of their sockpuppets' votes in this AfD have been struck off. Haleth (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Haleth: In my view, this doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keep at WP:SK: the nominator was technically not blocked under any account at the time that they submitted the nomination, and even if they were, because other editors have added substantive comments before the sockpuppetry was discovered, the discussion should be allowed to proceed (with the sock comments disregarded). Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking more along the lines of the nomination being unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption by the nominator, and sockpuppetry is an exemplary tactic of disruptive editing. But I understand your point. Haleth (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club, the sources dug up are a bunch of passing mentions, unreliable sources, and sources that only mention the character in an in-universe context, none of which contribute to notability. I am not seeing the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I believe most content here is scrapped together from other reviews, only really being mentioned by most. How the entire reception section describes her, these are simply reviews about the game, but they could possibly dedicate their own section explaining her and why they like her. However, this is not the case; the Kotaku source says "Monika’s writing is disarming and sinister" and that's it. Not only that, it talks about her in context of the other three, too.

The entire first paragraph in development is about all four characters as a whole, allowing for easy porting to the main article.

And yes, I know this user is a sockpuppet and this was made out of bad faith, but the general reasoning behind the existence of some articles is invalid. P anini ^🥪 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Doki Doki. Strip out the gameplay and plot elements, and you're left with practically nothing that can't be added to DDLC. --Masem (t) 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines. Jester's case, given the amount and type of coverage, is distinguishable from the other ship namesake AfDs. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice D. Jester[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Lieutenant commander (United States) doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the planned USCGC Maurice Jester (WPC-1152) can be set out on that page Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with the ship's page. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's WP:TOOSOON for that, as the ship article doesn't exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not even have an article on the vessel named after him, no reason to have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, I know you are not a newbie, and that you leave opinions in many AFD. So why aren't you leaving opinions that have a genuine policy basis?

The reason we should have an article about Jester is that he unquestionably measures up to GNG. He appeared on the cover of Life magazine, for crying out loud.

He sank a u-boat. Not only did he sink a u-boat, it was one of the first u-boat sunk by US forces. So his sinking of it was highly covered by RS. He didn't only sink a u-boat, he sank one that was larger and better armed than his own cutter. His cutter's main armament was a single short 3 inch gun, while the u-boat was armed with a longer and more powerful 88mm.

Topics merit coverage when they measure up to GNG. I know you know this.

I am going to suggest the closing administrator ignore you, unless you can add an argument based on policy or long-standing convention. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact we don't have an article on the ship named after him because the ship has yet to be built and when it has been we will. JPL, seriously, if you're going to !vote in AfDs please make valid arguments. It's getting to the point where your participation in AfDs is actively damaging to them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I believe there should be notability here - "on the cover of Life" is a very high bar that most don't clear - but most of the references that exist in the article are internal USCG publications. I assume there was an actual article in Life on him? Or at least a blurb? That would help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm sorry the life article is not online, or not easily findable. One of the other RS referred to him being on the cover, and I assume that meant Life had an article about him.
- There are about a dozen books, not from the USCG, published in the late 1940s or 1950s that cover him. Unfortunately, google only offers a "snippet view" of those books. Fifteen years ago it was possible to get a larger context by doing a second google search for a phrase at the end of the current snippet, which would result in a 2nd snippet centered on that second phrase. Do this a couple of times and you could get a whole paragraph. But that hasn't worked in a long time.

The Bushranger, Mztourist didn't say so here, or in the dozens of other AFD he or she recently filed, but he or she seems to have decided to file an AFD against every single article on anyone who is the namesake of a USN or USCG vessel. Personally, I think that, before setting out on this unilateral campaign, they should have sought out other people's opinions on whether this was a good idea, at the military history project, BLPN, or village pump. What do you think? Geo Swan (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the previous procedure for non-notable medal recipients who had ships named after them in WWII. If you believe that there is SIGCOV in multiple RS then add it in. Saying "There are about a dozen books, not from the USCG, published in the late 1940s or 1950s that cover him" doesn't cut it. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist says he or she is "following the previous procedure for non-notable medal recipients who had ships named after them in WWII." In the interests of collegiality I request they link to the wikidocument of discussion where that procedure was laid out. Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to look back through previous AFDs to see that consensus being applied. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Edgar Acree being a recent example Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already looked through your recent burst of individual nominations of the individuals who were both heroic medal winners and recognized by having a ship named after them. I don't see how there is any way you can point to any of the AFD from your recent burst as establishing a the precedent of a "previous procedure". I am sorry that simply doesn't seem like an argument that merits serious consideration. It seems to me it falls far short of what you implied with your claim of "previous procedures". Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you are free to look back over all past AFDs of military people who had ships named after them and see what the outcomes were, that consensus is the previous procedure I was referring to and the basis for my nominations which generally result in redirects to the ships. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too have participated in past AFD of namesakes of vessels, and I challenge your claim that there is a precedent for you to call upon. I think your effort was, well, reckless, and that your efforts to comply with BEFORE - if you made any - fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The content at the moment is short, but verifiable. The coverage in Life (December 14, 1942) is more about the Coast Guard than Jester, although his Naval Cross award is mentioned in the magazine's cover description. This is at the low end of notability, but on balance I agree with Bushranger's assessment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle, did you find it online? Did you go to bound copies? Microfiche?

Do you think you are in a position to tell other people how to find the article?

When I try to give a fair report back as to how much of an article is about a topic I count the total number of paragraphs, and how many mention that topic. Do you have an idea as the total number of paragraphs? Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on Google Books. The availabilty of the content is often dependent on geographical location though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, in the interests of collegiality, could you please share the link you found, even if you think it might not work for contributors in other nations? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

search result on Google books :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nothing about Jester in the story, so just the cover photo and the brief blurb: "Lieutenant Maurice Jester, the Coast Guard skipper on the cover, commands a 165-ft patrol boat like that on page 51. A chief boatswain's mate before the war, he and his crew are waging so successful a war against U-boats that he was recently awarded the Navy Cross for "extraordinary achievement."" Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to USCGC Icarus (WPC-110)#U-352 incident as this single event constitutes almost everything there is to say about him, and there's no reason to keep two somewhat different copies of the same narrative. The launching of an article on the new cutter is unlikely to change this. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The boat naming and LIFE cover feature are "significant award or honor"s and so pass WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mangoe. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Geo Swan said, there are plenty of books that discuss Jester. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. These were easy to find, and Mztourist should have done so before nominating this article for deltion: the policy requires one to "[s]earch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability", and instructs that "[t]he minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". And this is the "mimimum search expected"; expanding the parameters ever so slightly to include newspapers.com results in scores more easy-to-find sources. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10. Although Mztourist claims that "If you believe that there is SIGCOV in multiple RS then add it in", this is a significant misstatement of policy. After all, the policy states that "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources". So really, if anyone should have found and added these sources, it should have been Mztourist. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All passing mentions saying the same thing. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the creator to actually provide sufficient sources that conclusively establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked about five or six of these, what I see is that only one may talk about Jester himself, and it seems likely that the larger context would show the same thing that others more plainly relate: they all relate the incident, often quite briefly, and mentioned him since he was captain of the Icarus. I don't see myself puzzling over some twenty or so snippets trying to work out whether they amount to something, so I have to ask those who are presenting them: first, do any of them provide a basis for a biography of Jester, and second, failing that, does any of them supply any information about the incident or Jester which we do not already record? As far as I can tell, the answer to both questions is "no"; none of the ones I looked at offered any hope of a positive answer to either question. And given that, merger makes more sense, and I could, right now, take the two articles and perform the merger without increasing the length of the section in the Icarus article by more than a few sentences. If one you does expand Jester's article enough to necessitate its independent existence, I would be happy to back down on this, but nobody is doing it, and I feel no need to believe it can be done until it is done; meanwhile, treating his Navy Cross as requiring us to grant him the additional honor of his own article in WP is, I would submit, not the way a reference work ought to be written. Mangoe (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist says "I would argue that it is the responsibility of the creator to actually provide sufficient sources that conclusively establish notability."

Well, the article creator (me) did think that making the cover of Life magazine, getting promoted, being awarded the Navy Cross, and having a $65 million dollar vessel named in your honor, was enough to establish notability.

However, I think Mztourist's interpretation of our policies is a very risky one.

First WP:OWN says those who add new content, like article creators, don't own it. One thing that means is they shouldn't edit war with later contributors, who reword their original prose. But, another thing it means is that those who started articles are under no more obligation than anyone else to make sure the content they created gets updated so it measures up to the wikipedia's standards, if its inclusion standards tighten.
The wikipedia's inclusion standards have been tightening. The wikipedia has many articles that easily met its standards, at the time they were started, which do not measure up to the current standards. That could mean two things. It could mean that the underlying topic of those articles falls short of the current standards. Or, it could mean that while the underlying topic of the article measures up, it requires work to update the actual article to todays's standards.
Sorry, Mztourist, but I think this is why nominators, like you, absolutely must make a meaningful effort to comply with WP:BEFORE before you initiate each and every AFD on the articles you nominate.
WP:BLPPROD requires articles on BLP individuals to have at least one meaningful reference. I think this means, because we have stricter rules on BLP articles than other articles, a BLP article without at least one meaningful reference can be nominated for deletion, without a meaningful BEFORE search.
So, suppose you come across an article that easily measured up to our inclusion standards, at the time it was started, but that was in a time of looser standards, and you think it falls short today. You conduct your meaningful web search, conclude the article could be beefed up to meet today's standards, and then? Then you do no nominate it for deletion. I think your policy compliant choices are:

Your recent web search has found the references you need, so go fix it yourself;
Voice your concerns on the talk page, link to references you think are missing; state which passages you think lapse from NPOV, or some other policy;
Voice your concern on the user talk page of the article creator or other prolific contributor;
Use editorial tags, like {{cn}}, to signal your concerns to others;
Raise your concerns on a wider fora, like the talk page of the military history project, BLPN, RSN etc.;
Do nothing more than put the article on your watchlist, and make a mental note to chime in if someone else voices concerns similar to yours.
You even get to do nothing, as you have other fish to fry.

However, to repeat my main point, I think when your meaningful BEFORE search, fairly considered, leads you to conclude an article's underlying topic is notable, you do not then still nominate it for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the article creator, in this case you, to find and incorporate the SIGCOV in multiple RS when they create the article clearly showing that WP:GNG is met. I don't believe that inclusion standards have tightened substantially since 2016 when you first created the page. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, my gratitude for this reply? Consider it proportional to the effort you made to address my counter-arguments. Remember your obligations under WP:BATTLEGROUND please. Geo Swan (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above were WP:TLDR, you're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. As can be seen opinions are split on Jester, basically whether or not Life gets him over the line on SIGCOV, meanwhile almost all the other ship namesake AFDs are trending to redirect/merge. Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oops. I started this article, and have offered reasons for keeping it, in comments above. But I didn't leave a formal keep. I do so now, for the reasons offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "First captain to capture the crew of a U-boat" Not a lot of World War II Coast Guard people in wikipedia other than celebrities like Eddie Albert, Sid Caesar, Buddy Ebsen, Alan Hale Jr., Alex Haley, Victor Mature, Claiborne Pell, and Gig Young. It also seems rather significant that the Coast Guard not the Navy was the "first to capture the crew of a U-boat" Durindaljb (talk) 21:48, 27 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 (☎) 00:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is his achievement remarkable., it also easily surpasses WP:GNG. Since there are already lots of WP:RS that show WP:Significant coverage, one can only conclude that WP:Before was 'more honored in the breach than the observance.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above - wolf 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its odd that Life magazines website doesn't have that in their searchable archives, too long ago I guess. I found two government websites to confirm the information of what he accomplished https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/15000804.htm https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/navy-depart-communiques-301-600.html so no doubt about it. Getting on the cover of Life magazine and the rest seem like he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 01:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever additional sources people have been dredging up, the fundamental problem remains: none of them are contain additional biographical information, and indeed, so far I've see next to no new information about the one notable incident itself. I still see no reason not to merge this article into the one on the cutter. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Mangoe, could you be specific about what you think is missing? I think DGG explained this best. The main thing that makes an individual notable is what they did. The name of their spouse, where they attended high school? That's pretty trivial isn't it?
Geber was a deservedly famous Arabic scholar, from the period when each new copy of a book required a somebody like a monk to sit down and manually transcribe it, letter by letter.
False Geber was notable impostor. Impostors were a known phenomenon back then. New unknown authors, who wanted their book copied, would attribute their brand new work to a famous author, making it much more likely to be recopied. The individual known as False Geber is an exception.
Isaac Asimov chose to include him in his Biographical Dictionary of Scientist. Asimov thought he was one of the 1000 most influential scientists of all time because the book he attributed to Geber was the first to contain instructions on how to prepare Sulfuric Acid, our first really strong acid.
We know nothing about False Geber. We don't know where they lived, or even exactly when they lived. We don't know their religion, or their occupation. All we know about them is that they played a key role in the development of Chemistry. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Geo Swan "The main thing that makes an individual notable is what they did." is incorrect, GNG states "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." Unless a subject specific guideline applies, notability is determined by coverage of what they did. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline pages all read at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Its not an absolute law. Someone is notable for what they did, not for the coverage. The coverage is just one way of proving something is noteworthy, not the only way. Dream Focus 07:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, even if what they did was unremarkable if they had SIGCOV in multiple RS they're notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG and specific guidelines are different, and need to be read in pari materia. WP:Notability#Subject-specific notability guidelines. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and as SOLDIER is just an Essay, GNG still applies. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Rahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG -a non-notable entrepreneur. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadat Rahman won the International Children's Peace Prize in 2020. This topic has received significant coverage in Bangladeshi and international media. I have added 13 references so far and all of them are reliable. Multiple sources state that Sadat Rahman is a social entrepreneur. So, I think it passes WP:GNG -a notable entrepreneur.--Knw360 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knw360: As the article creator you are usually expected to vote keep. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note User cupper is not following the guidelines. He is simply nominating the articles without doing proper WP:Before. He only took 1 minute to nominate this for deletion after his last edit. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's too bad that this is so short, but I do see personal coverage in reliable sources here. FalconK (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG for this BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared even on BBC: [[9]]. Kolma8 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:37, 2 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. Sandstein 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Roser[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. No coverage in reliable sources, so he fails the GNG as well. (How this lasted almost fourteen years I do not know.) Perhaps it's an interesting story, but that's not what we're here for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sanctuary Wood Cemetery - being the only German buried in a Commonwealth cemetery is of note - to the cemetery. The pilot fails GNG and SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. An article without sources for a long time. Biographies necessarily need sources, because when talking about people, care must be taken not to put untruths. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP applies to living people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I searched "Hans Roser aviator" -wikipedia on google books and found several references, while many are minor, I think that combined with the arguments for merge, it does show he meets WP:GNG The other language article is about the same as the English one. If I remain the only keep vote, consider my vote Merge and Redirect Jeepday (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find a detailed account of the subject here. It seems telling that only Jeepday above had the wit to make a similar search. The opinions of the other editors should be correspondingly discounted as lacking evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why User:Andrew Davidson believes he is so important that our opinions "should be correspondingly discounted as lacking evidence". Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:BASIC. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Although many "keep" !votes are poorly premised, some do validly note the presence of the subject in a documentary work. On balance, participants who state a policy-based reason for keeping the article outweigh those supporting deletion. BD2412 T 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Sanchez[edit]

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

As of this nomination, there are 27 different citations in this article. However, none of them demonstrate the significant, in depth coverage required for WP:GNG. She also does not pass WP:NPOL as a candidate for election who did not win. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jana Lynne Sanchez is widely seen as a leader in the movement of women running for office that started in 2018. There are multiple references to her race in dozens of sources included on the page. There are a handful of profiles of her listed as sources as well. Most importantly she is the subject of a major documentary movie (one of only three candidates, the other two who also have wikipedia pages). Lastly there are dozens of other women candidates who have run in this era and although they did not win, they have been crucial to implementing sorely-needed changes with regard to gender and equality. Most of those women have wikipedia pages. These include Laura Moser, Liz Watson and other women who were on a similar level in terms of national focus. EmmadelaFuenteFW (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC) — EmmadelaFuenteFW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - There seems to be a wealth of independent, reliable coverage of the subject. She seems to meet notability. ExRat (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rescinding vote currently, per what I believe are issues that need to be addressed, brought up by Bearcat in this discussion. ExRat (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jana Sanchez remains notable in Texas politics and is a common name. She ran for office in 2018 and is still seen as a community leader and advisor to many ranking Texas politicians. The wiki page gives a lot of helpful information in determining who Jana Sanchez is. She will continue to be a leader in Texas politics and this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanirali (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a really well sourced article. I knew she was well known, but I am impressed with how many reliable sources there are for her and her career. Bicjic — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jana Sanchez is a current, notable and active politician in Texas. She currently serves on several political organization boards and ran for Congress in 2018. Sources: ^[6] ^[7]^[8] Jenstrobelatx (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC) — Jenstrobelatx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - seems to meet notability but article needs clean up, there are a lot of external links in the body text. Jooojay (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanirali (talk · contribs). Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the base notability requirement for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the existence of some campaign coverage is not a GNG-based exemption from having to hold office because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage. To get an article on these grounds, the bar she has to clear is not just "verifiably stood as a candidate" — it is "her candidacy is of much more distinctively special, and much more nationalized, significance than most other candidates' candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", but nothing here demonstrates that at all. Further, several of the keep votes above come from SPAs who never contributed to Wikipedia at all before showing up in this discussion — and even some of the ones who can't strictly be tagged as SPAs are still not names I recognize as established participants in AFD discussions. This looks much, much more like sock or meat puppetry than the well-informed opinions of people who actually understand how Wikipedia's notability criteria actually work. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree that some of the editors in this discussion possibly seem suspect; several have not contributed any edits to Wikipedia before arriving at this discussion. I think this needs to be looked into. While I still think Jana Sanchez may merit an article, I am going to actually rescind my "keep" vote, as I refuse to be involved in a process that "wins" by methods (sock and meat puppetry) that are against Wikipedia policy. ExRat (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some input from more experienced editors to build on Bearcat's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: multiple secondary and reliable sources about Jana Sanchez. Aren't these the minimum requirements for WP: N? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election always gets some coverage of their campaign in the local media of the area where they're running — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless. So it's not just a question of whether sources exist: we test the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just their raw number alone, and not all possible sources contribute equally to the question of whether the person has secured wikinotability or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she is a notable politician in Texas, would meet WP:NPOL. ~RAM (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

gidonb (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of sources cited is not the only proof of notability. The subject is widely covered above all as a candidate, who did not make it all the way to the Congress. This she fails WP:NPOL. She would have passed WP:GNG only if at least 3 independent reliable sources covered her in detail APART from the election process. However this is not the case - all of the sources are tied to her activities performed within the election process. So in my opinion, she is not eligible for an article. Less Unless (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is the subject notable for any of her activities outside of politics? The answer is easily no. So that leaves us with the question as to whether the subject meets notability as a politician. Using the yardstick of WP:NPOL, the first criteria is holding an international, national, or statewide office. The subject has never been elected so clearly, this criteria is not met. The alternative is significant press coverage. As Bearcat has pointed out, every politician will get coverage about their campaign. Is there significant coverage about them aside from that? The article has a lot of references but it really is just a lot of fluffy padding of articles where her tweet has ben included in some other article. That is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1387070/its-a-sin-cast-who-is-in-its-a-sin-Olly-Alexander-Keeley-Hawes-channel-4-series
^ https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/lydia-west/
^ https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/its-a-sin-lydia-west-and-jill-nalder-discuss-the-power-of-allyship-during-aids-crisis/
^ https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/lydia-west/
^ https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a35289710/lydia-west-its-a-sin/
^ https://tarrant-together.com/board-of-directors/
^ https://progresstexas.org/about-us
^ https://www.sanchez4texas.com

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The refbombing doesn't amount to sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG. As unelected candidate only, fails also WP:NPOL. There's clearly heavy COI editing, incl. (apparently) by the subject herself, and what looks like pretty overt lobbying of the same ilk in this AfD. To get rid of all that, and the POV, peacockery and fluff, this would need WP:TNT at the very least. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article cites nearly fourth sources-that’s definitely enough to remove the {{More citations needed}} template. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter how many citations there are, the fact remains that many passages are unreferenced. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't look like there's many extensive reliable coverage by secondary sources of her brought up in the references in this discussion. That said, it's not at all unreasonable to propose that she may be the subject of future coverage. This AfD may therefore need to be extended a bit, or be the subject of an undelete. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yes, refbombing will make it appear to pass GNG. What sources did you see what would make her actually pas GNG? -- Whpq (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well-known activist, whom I and 28,600 people follow on Twitter @janasanchez. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, because Sanchez does appear to be a 'Major local political figure who has received significant press coverage', including because of the documentary, but also because "an unelected candidate for political office [...] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Per WP:GNG, there also appears to be extensive coverage of her post-election career as a commentator and activist, which may not be clear from how the references are currently stacked in the article, and this notability further seems to be supported by WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:HEY, I am working on the article to address concerns raised by this discussion, including as to whether "her candidacy is of much more distinctively special, and much more nationalized, significance than most other candidates' candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", because the documentary and other commentary seems to support that criteria. I am also working to address issues related to sourcing and fluff in the article. It is currently a work in progress, but !voters may want to review it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:NPOL. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG largely because of the documentary. Being 1/3 of the featured subjects of a documentary on a major network is more coverage than most candidates receive. By being featured in the documentary, the subject is used as an example of other candidates in the 2018 election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Enos733: I was going to say that the documentary's critical reception from reliable sources that discussed Sanchez in the documentary also supported WP:GNG (and is commentary about Sanchez I referred to in my above comment in support of keeping this article), but then saw that you deleted them from the article. I think the information and references should be restored in order to address the concerns raised in this discussion and to support WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented on the talk page, but the fact that the subject is notable is not because of the critical reception of the documentary, but the fact that she is 1/3 of subjects in a featured documentary on a major network. Those sources I deleted are foremost about the documentary and only indirectly about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded my thoughts on the Talk page, but I also think the critical reception helps address the concern raised by Bearcat with regard to the ten year test. I do not think the WP:PRIMARY sources (quotes from the directors) are sufficient to support WP:GNG or the ten year test, but I think the critical reception from independent and reliable secondary sources that review Sanchez and the impact of the documentary (e.g. Baltimore Sun, New York Daily News, RobertEbert.com) do support WP:GNG and help show how Sanchez has established an enduring relevance per the ten year test. There is also a reference about critical attention (Surge Press Hits) in the article that links to a wide variety of additional sources that could be reviewed and possibly included, but I spent more time on article clean up after WP:BASIC seemed satisfied. Also, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so sources discussing Sanchez in the context of the documentary seem helpful for establishing notability - as a prominent cast member, none of the reviews appear to be making 'trivial' mentions of her role. Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Advisory Memoranda[edit]

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

NSTISSAM TEMPEST/1-92 deleted via prod, and this overarching topic also seems to fail general notability guidelines with sources being primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and delete to National Security Agency. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We cannot merge and delete for attribution reasons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 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. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ross (cricketer)[edit]

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

Subject meets none of the notability criteria for cricket; see WP:NCRICKET. No games in any of the listed divisions; played only at university level. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject does not meet any notability criteria for WP:NCRICKET. Really? It says an individual has"...appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". He happens to have appeared in eight matches that satisfy that criteria. StickyWicket (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, this was my bad, 100%. Withdrawing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chennai Metropolitan Bus Routes[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, completely unsourced and nothing notable about any of the bus routes themselves or any of them as a group. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please look at the Category:Lists of bus routes' there are close to a hundred or so articles in that cat, and all of them are of equal and comparable notability as compared to this article. Since bus routes of other major cities are allowed I don't see any reason why this metro city article should be culled. The sourcing issue is solvable, since there are many many articles on this topic in English and Tamil media such as this. [10] [11] Walrus Ji (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting your reasoning that just because a list of bus routes in one city is notable, then somehow this one is because it fits into a specific category. Trivial coverage like the ones you've mentioned doesn't add much value to the article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to take a look at these discussions on similar AfDs.

WP:AFD/List of bus routes in London Closed as Keep
WP:AFD/List of bus routes in London (2nd nomination) Closed as Keep Walrus Ji (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles aren't even remotely similar. Around 10-20% of the routes operated in London are notable enough to have their own article, and as there is a whole range of referenceable content relating to Buses in London the list is therefore notable. Neither of those are criteria are satisfied in the Chennai bus routes list. Both those AfD's closed over a decade ago too. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure 10-20% of routes in Chennai too are notable enough to have their own article. All you need to do is start looking in Tamil language sources Walrus Ji (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not buying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This list is just a replication of the kind of poster displayed at bus-stops, no use to our readers unless they intend on hopping on a bus. Given we're not a mirror, and there's no other noted significance about the routes, historic or otherwise, i'm not seeing any encyclopedic loss should this be deleted. The prose appears to replicate the lede of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) but with different figures. Zindor (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not SIGCOV from IS RS discussing the subject as a group and the list does not serve a navigation purpose so it does not meet CLN. Wikipedia is not a bus or local travel guide. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 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. Sandstein 22:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisms in Canada[edit]

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

Should be covered in Canadian nationalism instead. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 12:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 12:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not the same thing as Canadian nationalism. I take it that nationalisms in Canada is supposed to describe things like Quebec nationalism—the whole point of which is that Quebec is not a part of Canada, or at least not a part in the same sense as other provinces. Canadian nationalism, by contrast, would be the view that the geographical area known as "Canada" as a whole (including Quebec, including Alberta—see Wexit) is a nation and should exist as such. I would almost be inclined to move Canadian nationalism to Nationalism in Canada and selectively merge the non-WP:ESSAY paragraphs in Nationalisms in Canada into that article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with the above that this isn't actually the same thing as Canadian nationalism. Covering the various nationalist strains within Canada that are not about the country as a whole seems like it could be a valid topic, but the page as it stands has very sparse sources and reads like an essay— something between WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Whether this stays depends on whether better sourcing can be found IMO. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at a minimum rename to Nationalist movements in Canada (or similar). I agree the redirect to Canadian nationalism is inappropriate, they are both distinct and notable topics. This topic with an appropriate name is notable, for a list at minimum or an article. However this page is written as a good faith OR SYNTH essay. If you remove this unsourced material, you are left with a stub. It will take far more time to rewrite this topic from what it is now, then it would be to start over properly. TNT exists for a reason, editors (including the creator) that wish to create a proper article shouldn't be hindered by trying to create a sourced article out of a good faith but undersourced essay, when the resulting history would be of dubious relevance. Sometimes articles should get do overs. // Timothy :: t | c | a 14:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete outright, or merge with Canadian nationalism to Nationalism in Canada or Nationalist movements in Canada?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig ^talk 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Better to start over from scratch (with a better title), as this seems to be mostly SYNTH. As an old Canadian, I've never heard of "nationalisms". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be more inclined to vote Keep if it had sources, it's mostly rambling a series of small "what-ifs". Could be put in an article on Canadian history, but would require a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see published full books like Irish Nationalism in Canada or articles like "Sikh Diaspora Nationalism in Canada" that could be used to expand this article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:47, 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. Tone 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list(s) based mainly on non-independent, promotional industry sources; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. What little coverage that exists in independent sources can be summarized at the main biographical article(s). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Angela White and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Sasha Grey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages in Category:Lists of awards by pornographic film actor for identical reasons:

Awards and nominations received by Natalie Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of awards and nominations received by Asa Akira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of awards and nominations received by Lisa Ann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplication. There is an awards section the main article no need for separate article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: a WP:NOT lists of low-impact industry awards; all fail WP:NLIST. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, these have been bloatfests within articles, trying to spin them out is even worse. Since just being nominated is no longer an inclusion criteria, IMO, trim every list to awards won only. Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The issue here is what is considered to be "reliable" In the adult industry there is a different set of media which are reliable. These are AVN, XBIZ and XRCO. These are reliable publications. By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards. the bar is being set as if they are a mainstream actor. The problem here is this feels very much like trying to remove these because they are not understood. The bar being set here would mean that all of the pages listing the awards for 90-95% of individuals who are notable to have a page on Wikipedia and have connected award pages, would have the award page deleted. The things with these pages are that they are effectively connected pages to the main page and are only split off when the information becomes too much for the page in and of itself. If the information were included in the main article of the individual there would be not questions on notability as the content of pages is not up for notability discussion it is the subject of the article. The subject of these pages derives the notability. These pages notability and inclusion on Wikipedia are derived from the individual who has been nominated and won these awards, and that is where they derive notability from. If it was an awards page for an individual who was also not notable then fine delete the awards page, these pages are though connected, and only split off when it becomes too big for the main page. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from the main subject. In the case of lists, notability requires that listed items have been discussed as a group or set by independent sources. Otherwise literally any notable subject could have an endless amount of ancillary list articles of indiscriminate trivia. We don't have different standards of reliable sourcing for the adult industry. Industry sources are largely promotional, and especially so regarding the awards they themselves give out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards.. Yes, and as far as I am concerned, that is a desirable outcome WP:PORNBIO was deprecated, simply being nominated for one of these awards is no longer an acceptable notability criteria. Pornographic performers have to meet the general notability guideline to retain an article on the Wikipedia, the days of relying on closed, biased, industry "awards" are long-gone. If the awards list is getting too long for the main bio, then that is a sign of list bloat, not that it should be spun out. Zaathras (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a split issue. The information will simply end up back on the main articles of the individuals. Targetting for deletion these pages is the wrong way to handle a split issue and a wider issue regarding separate pages for individuals awards. There are hundreds of individuals on here who have unwieldy awards pages. These include every award under the sun. Going after pornographic actors and only them misses the wider issue here. This is a split issue and not a deletion issue. Also, notability as it currently stands derives from the sources, which are being dismissed simply because they are from the porn industry. By that reasoning, any trade could have all of its sources thrown out on those grounds. Simply saying it is not, does not make it so. This is also not indiscriminate trivia. This is sourced information and meets the standards on other pages regarding individuals awards and nominations. If the article is of poor quality improve the article. Laziness reaches for deletion. The argument being put forth here is basically pornography is not notable, which is just flat wrong and is a very poor argument, and effectively falls into the realms of I don't like porn, particularly when a general clean up of too many categories is used to go look we don't like them as was done by throwing around PORNBIO like it is a silver bullet. I would also hope the deletion nominator actually wanted the pages deleted or it would be a bad faith nomination. Simply put targeting these pages for deletion misses the real issues that this is a split issue and a wider problem with awards pages. The wider issue on what is and is not considered to be notable for awards lists. Deleting only porn articles smacks of missing the point. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of individuals on here who have unwieldy awards pages – Yes, other stuff exists. Feel free to take your concerns to those pages.
[N]otability as it currently stands derives from the sources, which are being dismissed simply because they are from the porn industry – sources for AVN awards are mostly from AVN, sources for XBIZ awards are mostly from XBIZ, and so on. Therefore they are not independent of the topic which they are reporting on.
The argument being put forth here is basically pornography is not notable – that is not the argument at all. The argument is that pornographic performers should be evaluated by the same standards of notability as other topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes no refutation other to go I didn't hear what was being said. So I shall repeat my own points. I think both of us now need to cease going round in circles as we are diametrically opposing each other and have clearly different interpretations here. We are both acting in good faith and going round and round is not helpful. Said my piece, and moving on these awards for these notable individuals are notable and that's the end of it. This is a WP:split problem, and the articles need to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkle1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what WP:SPLIT says (my bolding): "If ... a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles ... but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia." Where's the evidence that the awards received by the performer(s) are notable independent of the main subject? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 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. Tone 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Sasha Grey[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list based mainly on non-independent, promotional industry sources; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. The little coverage of Grey's awards that exists in independent sources, such as at news.com.au, is already summarized at Sasha Grey. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplication. There is an awards section the main article no need for separate article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely a WP:SPLIT issue that should not have been brought to AFD. If this is not kept as a separate page it should just be redirected to Sasha_Grey#Awards. We need to stop wasting time and deletion bureaucracy on what are purely matters of how to organize article content or what level of detail is appropriate for a subtopic of a parent article. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a valid point, but despite redirects being cheap, I couldn't imagine anyone actually searching for the title phrase. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that this was initially created as a redirect over seven years ago, and then has existed as a page with its own content for over six years, suggests otherwise. It's also a standard way to title these split sublists, so a redirect would clearly mark where the content is and only is (if the consensus is to only have these covered at the parent page). Redirecting also preserves the history in case someone can make a good case for expanding it back out. Not to mention it would also comply with WP:ATD. Insisting on complete deletion is not only unnecessary but also not a good way to achieve consensus. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a WP:NOT list of low-impact industry awards; no need for a stand-alone article. No need for a redirect either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue here is what is considered to be "reliable". In the adult industry, there is a different set of media which are reliable. These are AVN, XBIZ and XRCO. These are reliable publications. By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards. the bar is being set as if they are a mainstream actor. The problem here is this feels very much like trying to remove these because they are not understood. The bar being set here would mean that all of the pages listing the awards for 90-95% of individuals who are notable to have a page on Wikipedia and have connected award pages, would have the award page deleted. The things with these pages are that they are effectively connected pages to the main page and are only split off when the information becomes too much for the page in and of itself. If the information were included in the main article of the individual there would be not questions on notability as the content of pages is not up for notability discussion it is the subject of the article. The subject of these pages derives the notability. These pages notability and inclusion on Wikipedia are derived from the individual who has been nominated and won these awards, and that is where they derive notability from. If it was an awards page for an individual who was also not notable then fine delete the awards page, these pages are though connected, and only split off when it becomes too big for the main page.. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the main subject. In the case of lists, notability requires that listed items have been discussed as a group or set by independent sources. Otherwise literally any notable subject could have an endless amount of ancillary list articles of indiscriminate trivia. We don't have different standards of reliable sourcing for the adult industry. Industry sources are largely promotional, and especially so regarding the awards they themselves give out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a set of independent sources. There are far more than simply "awards given out by the publication themself. Simply not being what is a regular source does not make it not notable or unreliable. If that was the case any industry which is not mainstream yet notable would never qualify for inclusion on here. Industry publications are notable and are independent of the source. Angela whites website would not be independent. AVN is independent of Angela White. The article needs a clean up not deletion. Throwing around indiscriminate trivia is subjective what the nominator considered trivia will be different to others myself included. Clean up these articles and handle the split issue. Deletion is a lazy answer. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AVN is not independent of the AVN Awards, which are listed here based entirely on AVN web pages. Ditto for XBIZ Awards. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AVN is though independent of Sahsa Grey. There are other publications which feature the AVN awards, too many primary sources is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to clean up the article and tag the article and start a discussion if necessary. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grey is not the subject of the article. The awards received by the performer need to be independently notable to merit a separate list article. Feel free to add independent sources; improvements are welcomed during AfD discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBPOST. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 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. A redirect from the correct spacing/capitalization can be created if desired Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Tragedy, Tomorrow's Memory ( A-Reece Mixtape)[edit]

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

Zero sources and zero indication of notability. Rob van vee 07:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Reece or delete - I don't mind which. His studio albums barely meet our notability guidelines and this certainly doesn't. No independent coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Reece per Spiderone. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Reece or delete per Spiderone. No evidence of notability to warrant a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect. The title contains a terrible spacing error that is not a common misspelling. Bad capitalization as well. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I would say the best outcome is to amend the spacing error and the incorrect capitalisation of 'mixtape', then redirect Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a new redirect. Has nothing to do with this AFD. You can create it now. No need to wait. This term should only be deleted. gidonb (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Reece: Barely found anything about the album. Search results return only passing mentions, not to mention one of its singles is the subject and not the album itself. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Tone 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Angela White[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list based mainly on non-independent, promotional industry sources; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. The little coverage of White's awards that exists in independent sources, such as in The Daily Beast, is already summarized at Angela White. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplication. There is an awards section the main article no need for separate article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a WP:NOT list of low-impact industry awards; no need for a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article spin-out, in which the prose is promotional and supported by low quality references. The objective content can be restored from to main Angela White article from its history. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue here is what is considered to be "reliable". In the adult industry, there is a different set of media which are reliable. These are AVN, XBIZ and XRCO. These are reliable publications. By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards. the bar is being set as if they are a mainstream actor. The problem here is this feels very much like trying to remove these because they are not understood. The bar being set here would mean that all of the pages listing the awards for 90-95% of individuals who are notable to have a page on Wikipedia and have connected award pages, would have the award page deleted. The things with these pages are that they are effectively connected pages to the main page and are only split off when the information becomes too much for the page in and of itself. If the information were included in the main article of the individual there would be not questions on notability as the content of pages is not up for notability discussion it is the subject of the article. The subject of these pages derives the notability. These pages notability and inclusion on Wikipedia are derived from the individual who has been nominated and won these awards, and that is where they derive notability from. If it was an awards page for an individual who was also not notable then fine delete the awards page, these pages are though connected, and only split off when it becomes too big for the main page. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the main subject. In the case of lists, notability requires that listed items have been discussed as a group or set by independent sources. Otherwise literally any notable subject could have an endless amount of ancillary list articles of indiscriminate trivia. We don't have different standards of reliable sourcing for the adult industry. Industry sources are largely promotional, and especially so regarding the awards they themselves give out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a set of independent sources. Simply not being what is a regular source does not make it not notable or unreliable. If that was the case any industry which is not mainstream yet notable would never qualify for inclusion on here. Industry publications are notable and are independent of the source. Angela whites website would not be independent. AVN is independent of Angela White. The article needs a clean up not deletion. Throwing around indiscriminate trivia is subjective what the nominator considered trivia will be different to others myself included. Clean up these articles and handle the split issue. Deletion is a lazy answer. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is awards received by Angela White, not Angela White herself. AVN is not independent of the AVN Awards, which are listed here based entirely on AVN web pages. Ditto for XBIZ Awards, XCritic Awards, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AVN Xcritic and XBIZ are though independent of Angela White. There are other publications which feature the AVN, XBIZ and XCritic awards, too many primary sources is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to clean up the article and tag the article and start a discussion if necessary. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
White is not the subject of the article. The awards received by the performer need to be independently notable to merit a separate list article. Feel free to add independent sources; improvements are welcomed during AfD discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 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 speedy delete. The article has already been speedily deleted as a G3 hoax GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ifan Jenkins[edit]

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

Poorly referenced. Ultimately a out-of-process AfC move. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not so much 'poorly referenced' as completely unreferenced (and a BLP, at that). Zero indication of notability (and no, buying a bogus 'Laird' title does not one notable make!), could have been speedied as A7, IMO. Apparently (?) created by the person himself. Probably a joke or hoax of some sort. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not referenced, badly written, WP:Before cannot find any Lord Ifan Jenkins as per articleDavidstewartharvey (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. See page history. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Front Row[edit]

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

unsourced copy-pasted mess of an article Xiamatt (talk) 05:55, 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 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Comerford Todd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for deletion in September, when there was no consensus due to the possibility that she might be named to the Supreme Court. This was never going to happen, and did not happen. The subject therefore never rose above the status of one of numerous similarly titled White House functionaries, and interest has since disappeared. BD2412 T 05:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-level staffer fails WP:GNG. Placement on a Supreme Court shortlist (that she helped draft) does not make her notable. Should have been deleted when I nominated the page back in September. KidAd talk 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be a brief mention on the White House Counsel article during Le Grand Orange's tenure. Nothing notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I and others said before, being deputy white house counsel is not a sign of notability. There are too many of them and there is no notability. Considering that there are evidently quotes from Mr. Trump about the time the post-Anthony Kennedy vacancy occured that he was saving Amy Comey Barrett to fill the seat previously held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the suggestions that Todd would be nominated to the Supreme Court seem in hind-sight to have not been justified after all. However, Mr. Trump especially, and political leaders in general who make appointments, make lots of passing statements about such that later on they do not always follow through on, so it is entrirely possible that at one point Mr. Trump seriously considered nominating Ms. Todd, but he never did so, and being rumored as a possible nominee for the supreme court does not fit the inclusion criteria, so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:SNOW. I also note she fails my own standards for lawyers. While she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Clarence Thomas, she has zero bar association or civic committee activity, and zero newspaper articles of record online about her. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 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. Tone 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PNM Building[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. Article sources and WP:BEFORE revealed mill type local coverage and directory style listings. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. This is a normal building, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yet another misbegotten Brutalist child of the sixties that even at the time nobody seems to have cared about, much less now. Not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original page creator (from back in 2005) and I agree there probably isn't enough to justify an article. I do think that some of the content would be relevant to PNM Resources so my suggestion is to merge to that article under a "Headquarters" section. PNM also has a former headquarters which is a historic building so that could be discussed there also. Camerafiend (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBUILD and my own standards. My mother lived in the ABQ area for 18 years, and I've been there at least 15 times: this is not even a locally notable building. I would not oppose a merger. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 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 Deleted by user:Jimfbleak per wp:g11 - spam or promotional page. (non-admin closure) BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Robert Rohn[edit]

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

This is an autobiography without any independent sources. The only edits not made by the subject of the article are technical and syntax changes. From a Google search, I can't find extensive enough independent coverage of this subject for it to pass the GNG, since most of the results are affiliated with the subject and the few independent sources are mostly passing mentions. Aspening (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a big ad, which appears to have been written by the subject. The large link farm and lack of any WP:RS clearly demonstrate that this is promotion. Tagged forWP:G11. Possibly (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PLease close -- seems to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 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. Tone 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stotts Coaches[edit]

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

Can’t find enough significant coverage from the references or a BEFORE search for this to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of WP:RS available, evidently a poor BEFORE search conducted. Lilporchy (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilporchy: Please bring up 3 of the independent reliable sources that you found and tell me if they are all significant coverage before !voting and telling me I'm doing a bad job searching. SK2242 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My google search did not find anything. There are no claims in the article that would suggest it is will meet WP:COMPANY. Jeepday (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT/NCORP and BEFORE did not show SIGCOV from IS RS. Routine, mill, normal coverage does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 12:09, 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. A redirect can be created or discussed as part of the normal editing process. Hog Farm _Talk 22:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 84[edit]

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

Can’t find any significant coverage on this - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might redirect to Greater Manchester. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable bus route. Not opposed to a redirect if a suitable target can be found, but I don't think just redirecting to Greater Manchester is the answer. If there were a list of bus routes, we could redirect there, but there isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bus route. WP does not need redirects for every nn bus route. // Timothy :: talk 11:47, 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. Tone 22:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazembek family[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. There are no sources showing the topic - the family - is notable. The sources are about three individuals in the family, but none about the subject - the family. // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like the only two we have articles on are already listed in the DAB page Alexander Kazembek, to which Kazembek redirects. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The family is not notable, and this is a duplication of the dab page. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 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. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vilsack[edit]

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

Former governor and two-time United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is the clear primary topic of this surname. A disambiguation page is not needed, as this can redirect to the primary topic with a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a surname page, not a dab page, and the criterion for getting a redirect is higher than the Primary Topic cutoff: Shakespeare yes, but not many more. PamD 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirects of surnames should IMO only apply to cases like Einstein. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom – If this were a page about the history and etymology of the surname, or served to disambiguate between more people, then there would be value in it, but I don't see value in keeping this page as it is. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is surname, not dab. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a source for the proposition that this is, in fact, a surname? Is there any source with an etymology, or any other information about this term as a surname? BD2412 T 02:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing that shows this surname is notable, and thus nothing that shows we need an article on it. We clearly do not need it to list the two notable person who ever had this last name. Especially since the two people listed here are married to each other. The articles are closely linked already, there is absolutely no benefit to having this page. Have the above editors even bothered to pay attention enough to realize that the two people listed here constitute one married couple?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any problem. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:APO. Not a fan of redirecting surnames unless they are almost synonymous with the name. And then the hatnote would need to cover similar Vilseck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD, Clarityfiend, and Bagumba. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 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 Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry L. P. Beckwith Jr.[edit]

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

A complete vanity project with unverifiable relations, trustee assignments, and lists of genealogical clubs. This falls far below GNG. Kbabej (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing approaching notability, particularly for a BLP. There's no substantial coverage in reliable sources. I also see a potential COI - a user named Henry L. P. Beckwith has done a good deal of editing. In any event, this definitely fails the GNG and WP:NBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to a redirect per Cunard, assuming that article survives AFD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing salvageable here. I tried to find sources, but I could not find anything useful. It should also be noted that Henry L. P. Beckwith Jr. has written thirty-two percent of this article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts, the book the subject wrote, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts, where I have supported retention.
Cunard (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to indicating that Beckwith is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out above, this page seems largely written by the subject (who should know what sources exist). Based on a reasonable online search, I find nothing substantial with which to support a keep assertion. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any good sources to indicate him being a notable writer.

PastramiSandwich4456 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible that the book may be notable, but Beckwith himself is not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I don't understand how he's notable. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future Leaders Academy, Kenya[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. There are a lot of directory listings, and basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. // Timothy :: talk 04:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks any references and I couldn't find anything to substantiate notability when I looked. Not even the usual trivial news sources. Not that they would cut it on their own if they did exist though. So, this school clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding hardly anything at all online, nothing more than a few entries in databases of Kenyan schools. That doesn't cut it under the GNG, which requires significant coverage. Unless someone can find something more, this pretty clearly fails notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very small, private school; article lacks siginficant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 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 merge to Wonderland Sydney. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney's Wonderland[edit]

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

Article is about a proposed amusement park that never eventuated. Website last updated in June 2015. Maleidstone (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, all sources are trivial. There is no establishment of notability. ~RAM (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Redirect~~ - page should be ~~redirected~~merged to Wonderland Sydney as a valid alternative to deletion with a new short section on proposals to reopen the park. The material about the revised park is sourced and true, and it would be entirely appropriate to redirect to that page even if there is no consensus to keep this page. Deletion is a lazy option here and inappropriate in light of there being a valid alternative. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - revised to merge in light of Doncram's valid point below. Deus et lex (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per Deus et lex JarrahTree 05:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the proper AFD result, reflecting fact that the article has sources and substantial content that can/should be edited into the version of the Wonderland Sydney article existing before this AFD. "Redirect" would be unduly dismissive to editors of this article, and would give inappropriate permission to closer to merely redirect. Closer instead should follow AFD closing procedure to state that a proper merger is needed, if they do not themselves want to make that further effort. Thank you to Deus et lex for identifying this appropriate alternative to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doncram. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - the probability of this development dwindles with each successive year; if/when it is green-lit, it can be split off. Given there are RS that discuss the project,[12][13][14] there is some encyclopedic content here but not enough at present to merit a separate page. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:36, 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 keep. Consensus is to keep after further sourcing. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts[edit]

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

An obscure book without coverage from RS. Kbabej (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I can find several books that cite this book, I cannot find any reliable source that meaningfully discuss it. Reginald and de Camp barely discuss it in their books. Unfortunately, I cannot access the other cited book. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a single scholarly review of this book. Lovecraft Studies was the main scholarly journal for the eponymous field. The Lovecraft Annual has since replaced it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also nominated the author of the book, Henry L. P. Beckwith Jr., for deletion here. —Kbabej (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Burleson, Donald R. (Spring 1980). "Review of Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts". Lovecraft Studies (2): 34–36. Archived from the original on 2019-10-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
2. Murray, Will (Spring 1987). "Lovecraft's Provicence and Adjacent Parts". Lovecraft Studies: 42.
  The book review notes: "First published in 1979, this handy little guide to the Rhode Island haunts of H. P. Lovecraft has been reprinted. An outgrowth of a tour the noted researcher conducted during the First World Fantasy Convention in 1975, Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts describes four separate tours of the Provicence area, and the important sites mentioned in Lovecraft's stories and letters. As someone who has frequently guided non-New Englanders through the byzantine byways of Lovecraft's beloved natal city, I've found it useful, although the margin references designed to the specific sites to textual sources are rendered useless because Beckwith refers the reader to the hopelessly out-of-print Arkham editions of The Outsider and Beyond the Wall of Sleep—neither of which one is likely to tote on a tour, assuming one owned them."
  The book review further notes, "And with this edition limited to but 500 copies, it will not be long in print."
3. Moore, J. T. (March 1991). "Tours of Lovecraft's Providence" (PDF). SFRA Newsletter (185). Science Fiction Research Association: 14–15. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The book review notes: "Nor is much known of Lovecraft's Providence, a deficiency Beckwith's slim volume is intended to rectify. First published in 1979 and revised in 1986, it's composed of two tours of Providence, one by foot and one by car. During these tours one will see in photographs and maps "The Shunned House," the several houses where Lovecraft lived, the graveyards, the libraries, the various monuments, alleys, streets and public buildings that are referred to or hinted at in various stories. A second automobile tour takes one into the outlying cities and towns of Rhode Island. Margin notes tie places to stories in a fairly comprehensible manner. There are a few typos and some peculiar sentences, but on the whole Beckwith's tours are informative and fun, even if a bit limited."
4. Coale, Sam (1979-11-25). "Tours through Lovecraft's Haunted City and State". H. The Providence Sunday Journal. p. 12.
  According to pages 411–412 the S. T. Joshi book H. P. Lovecraft and Lovecraft Criticism: An Annotated Bibliography published by Wildside Press in 2002, The Providence Sunday Journal reviewed Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts on November 25, 1979.
5. de Lint, Charles (1987). "Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts—Henry L.P. Beckwith ("Enjoyable Tour Guide")". Fantasy Review.
  According to a page hosted on Charles de Lint's website titled "Reviews" here^{Internet Archive}, he reviewed the book. The page notes, "Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts—Henry L.P. Beckwith ("Enjoyable Tour Guide"), in Fantasy Review #97, (1987)".
6. Pickman, Richard (February 1980). Barron, Neil; Reginald, Robert (eds.). "Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review. The Complete Series, 1979–1980". Science Fiction & Fantasy. 2 (13). Borgo Press: 29. ISSN 0163-4348. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The mini-review notes: "Lovecraft lived in Providence most of his 47 years. When the first World Fantasy Convention met there in 1975, Beckwith conducted a tour of the city's sites mentioned in HPL's tales. This guidebook is an outgrowth of that tour, and contains four walking and auto tours of Providence and environs, with citations to the stories and letters of Lovecraft. Clear maps supplement the text. For the specialist only."
7. "Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts" (PDF). Science Fiction Review. Vol. 9, no. 2. May 1980. p. 43. ISSN 0036-8377. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The review notes: "For those who want to sink into the place where HE wrote... Maps and drawings and photos of the small city...where HE walked...and houses which HE used in HIS MIND to write his horror stories.... It's all well done, and for Lovecraft completists, a necessary reference and aid to appreciation."
8. Eisenthal, Bram (1999-10-30). "Lovecraft's Providence still echoes with his literary genius". Ottawa Citizen. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: " In 1975, a distant relative of Lovecraft's, lecturer Henry P. Beckwith Jr., began conducting tours of the East End where Lovecraft spent most of his life. This coincided with the first World Fantasy Convention, held in this city on Halloween weekend with its main theme the writer's large body of work. Beckwith's subsequent book, Lovecraft's Providence & Adjacent Parts (Donald M. Grant, 1979), is long out of print, though highly sought after. He had started a trend, and tours of the area are more popular than ever."
9. Breen, Tom (2013-03-16). "In the footsteps of New England horror's dark prince'". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article notes, "Self-guided tours are also popular. Books like ... Henry Beckwith Jr.'s "Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts" give the eager sightseer all the information necessary to gaze upon the structures found in stories like "The Call of Cthulhu" and "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lovecraft's Providence and Adjacent Parts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received seven reviews: Lovecraft Studies (two reviews), Science Fiction Research Association's SFRA Newsletter, The Providence Sunday Journal, Fantasy Review, Science Fiction & Fantasy, and Science Fiction Review, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a reminder for nominators, and editors who look at afds, when a book is sf/fantasy related a good place to start is the ISFDB (website here), so with this title, enter the author, click on the title, and we see a number of reviews listed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK ie. multiple reviews, as brought out by Cunard above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard has presented multiple RS reviews. Page was created by a likely COI editor (same page creator as that of author page), but the book seems to meet NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 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. Sandstein 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiren Bhagat[edit]

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

Journalist author who does not meet the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. Almost entirely unsourced. Created by a possible WP:COI user. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 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. Tone 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miksha[edit]

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

Wholly fails WP:BAND. No notable released on notable labels. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 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. Tone 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Foundations Charter School[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. GSS ^💬 03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - technically it passes my standards. It's been open for twenty years. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Sources in the article are from the school and a listing with a few stats, nothing that could be considered SIGCOV. 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 16:11, 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. Tone 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic songs of Sylhet[edit]

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

This article is poorly written, uses trivial mentions as references, and can be merged to larger articles such as Music of Bangladesh due to the lack of depth. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of music-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 16. UserNumber (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the nom concerns are about the current state of the article which per WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." are not reasons for delete. That issue aside. My google search did not find much, but looking at the other language page the subject seems to meet WP:GNG there are multiple references, and a well constructed article. Given what I see on the other language page, the English article looks like a stub about a notable subject that needs to be expanded by someone familiar with the subject and the language. Jeepday (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jeepday. Possibly we need to add a confirmation box ensuring the nominator has performed an adequate WP:BEFORE to AfD submissions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeepday and WP:HEY. The article now has 7 citations (5 in Bengali and offline, but allowed by WP:NONENG and WP:OFFLINE). Narky Blert (talk) 12:20, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikha Noora bint Khalifa Al Khalifa[edit]

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

Non notable person. damiens.rf 03:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Support. Been tagged for 6 years now.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of promotional articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Owning stuff does not make one notable, unless it's a billion dollars. The references are all press releases and government propaganda. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 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. Consensus is to keep after addition of more sourcing. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung Time Square CBD[edit]

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

Skyscraper in Taiwan. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. John B123 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of tallest buildings in Taichung per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was not able to find substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Pinging the article creator Heeheemalu (talk · contribs). Do you have significant coverage in reliable sources that cover the subject? Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added more references per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I have added some more references of the building in different sources (one from Taiwanese newspaper written in Chinese). Please check whether they are enough. If not, I can find more or you can search using its Chinese name provided in the article, which will render more results. Thanks! Heeheemalu (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heeheemalu (talk · contribs), thank you for adding more sources including this article from China Times. The other sources you added are either not independent of the subject (I think magarchitw is from the architect of the building) or are not reliable sources (Skyscraperpage.com, emporis.com)) so cannot be used to establish notability.
The only independent reliable source that provides significant coverage about Taichung Time Square CBD is the China Times article. Would you provide one more independent reliable source (it must be from a different publisher) that provides significant coverage about Taichung Time Square CBD? Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline has more information that defines what sources qualify. I will change from "merge" to "keep" if another source can be found. Thank you!
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard (talk · contribs), thank you for the message. I have just added one more source including this article from Commercial Times. Please could you check if this is alright? Thank you!
Heeheemalu (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two sources provided by Heeheemalu (talk · contribs). The China Times source provides substantial coverage about the building, while the Commercial Times article is on the brief side but is still completely about the building. The sources are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you, Heeheemalu (talk · contribs)!
Cunard (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Heeheemalu. VocalIndia (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD unsuccessfully relisted by Cyberbot I and Vanamonde93 due to a link on the AFD being blacklisted. If an admin wishes, they may close this discussion immediately, but I have no desire to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the comments above, the building has some impact on the city's economy. It is also part of Taichung's 7th Redevelopment Zone. Source: another China Times article, here: https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200428000252-260204?chdtv. There was also an off campus teaching visit by the Feng Chia University in 2014. Source: http://www.civil.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/ct?xItem=174127&ctNode=30213&mp=310101. Samuelsp15 (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other source: Apple Daily: https://tw.appledaily.com/home/20180113/CKTPU2POT6KWHHDZBMFVF6YE6U/ (quite reliable, I think; not a controversial topic). Samuelsp15 (talk) 09:21, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AqBurkitt[edit]

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

I am having trouble establishing this artifact is WP:GNG notable. It exists but the only source I found is a few sentences in [15]. At best I think we could try to preserve this by creating an article for the Taylor-Schechter collection, which would include a list of such fragments. But even if such a list existed, most of the current article is unreferenced anyway. Anyway, the issue is that academic / museal collections may be notable, but not every single exhibit is, and we apparently have quite a few similar pages (about single pages and such) that are not passing WP:GNG, I am afraid. Do correct me if I am wrong and if you can find that this artifact (page) has been a subject of some significant study or scholarly attention. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are at least a few more sources. The University of Cambridge has several pages discussing the artifact (1; 2). The latter page lists three more sources: one used in the article already, the one found by Piotrus, and a 1978 article that, judging by the name, appears to be fairly on point: "Christian Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah". One of the fragments was also displayed at the Met in 2012. This alone would suggest a level of notability, demonstrating that it's not just a piece of paper locked away in a climate-controlled basement somewhere, but an artifact specifically selected by a curator to tell a story at an exhibition. The Met and Cambridge descriptions also suggest reasons why these specific fragments are individually notable, such as including text from two known entities—the Greek scribe Aquila of Sinope, as well as Palestinian poet Rabbi Yannai. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, The Met page suggests that this is a fragment of Cairo Geniza as does UoC catalog entry which confirms that this is 'Taylor-Schechter Cairo Genizah Collection '. Perhaps some integration there might be in order. Cairo Geniza is of course notable, but as the article states, it is composed of 400,000(!) fragments. WP:NOTPAPER but I am still not seeing what makes such fragments independently notable. I can't find anything about what makes this fragment particularly important - it seems they are just examples of the Cairo Geniza collection (I don't want to say random, as they are likely better-preserved ones etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, as discussed above, it appears to be notable as an artifact directly connected to both Aquila of Sinope and Rabbi Yannai—a fact that the Met and University of Cambridge focus their attention on. And while not every item owned by a museum is notable, those which are on display are more likely to be notable than those in a basement, and those handpicked for an exhibition are even more likely to be notable than those merely on display. Were its state of preservation actually the criterion the museums were using for display, as you suggest, there are plenty of better preserved items in the collection that would likely have been picked first (e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10).

By the way, I hope you enjoy the irony of invoking WP:NOTPAPER as much as I do, given that the discussion is over an actual piece of paper (er, vellum). --Usernameunique (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, I'd be more happy to accept this artifact as significant if it was subject to in-depth coverage / studies as required by WP:GNG. That is still lacking. The fact that it was put on display means something, but not necessarily that the exhibit is encyclopedic. There is a ton of stuff in museums we don't have articles about, nor should we, because there is nothing substantial to be said about them. And if there is something substantial to be said about this piece of paper (vellum...), well, we should be able to find it. And as for connection to famous historical people - WP:NOTINHERITED... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about the manuscript not a particular fragment. It is especially significant in Biblical scholarship because of its great age. As for analogies, the tracing of the development of the Bible through numerous copies and translations is like the edit history of a Wikipedia article as each author may introduce changes and stylistic differences. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Significant in Bible scholarship according to whom? Which source says this? If you found such a source, don't be shy, share it with us, it would go a long way in establishing the notability of this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - This may be significant, but we need sources (which clearly show significance). I don't see those, which is rather sad, but how can we justify keeping this article until sources are found? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading "keep" arguments, I changed my mind. Sorry Piotrus, but this one is a keeper for me also.GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This manuscrit has clearly a significant importance. See for example a text of Larry Hurtado on his blog.--Amargor (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After all, in the article itself, it matters, as evidenced by the discussion at Edmon L. Gallagher: The Religious Provenance of the Aquila Manuscripts...

More such works that refer to this manuscript can be given. Not only scientific, but also popular or synthetic studies: 1) https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2017/08/16/how-did-we-get-the-old-testament-text/ 2) http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/synthesis/article/download/7718/7484 --Wiklol (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an assessment of the publishers of the copies of the manuscript collection: Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." --Wiklol (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiklol, We would prefer scientific articles to popular. Anyway, in the academic work you cite, where is AqBurkitt discussed? The paper mentions work of Francis Burkitt, sure, but not "AqBurkitt". If this artifact is referred there under an alternate name, could you provide a relevant quotation? We are not talking about Burkitt's work in general (which is what the last source discusses) but a tiny fragment of it (one of many artifacts he found and analysed). As I said, the wider collection may be notable, but this is just a single part (page...) of it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, Please, here it is: TS 12.184 and 20.50. --Wiklol (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wiklol, Thank you. I found a paragraph of three sentences discussing them in the first paper. This is a passing mention, focusing on description and it does not mention the significance of this document. If there is more please quote it, but for now, I stand by my view that those are minor artifacts that are not notable (but a part of a wider collection that is notable). It's the same logic as with a notable book - it doesn't make individual pages within it notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - So please see, if the article 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bible mentions the entire "collection" in terms of the obedience of the translation of Aquila, or whether "however, of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version." --Wiklol (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Wiklol, Britannica talks about a codice discovered in 1897. But the one we discuss has been published about in this year (and our article doesn't say when it was discovered). Are you 100% sure we are talking about the same topic? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus Yes, I bought myself a book that writes about it, and that's right. --Wiklol (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Wiklol, Which book? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible writes that what was discovered in 1897, was published in 1897. In August 1897 a report of the new discovery was also in the press, unfortunately I do not have access to the paid archive. --Wiklol (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Wiklol, Fair enough, but I remain concerned that what is significant is the collection of multiple artifacts, not a single part of it. From what I see Burkitt's discovery and publication are concerned with more than just this single page (two pages?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus, Look, please The Jewish Quarterly Review, Apr., 1899, Vol. 11, No. 3 On three leaves there were two passages of the Bible in the Aquila translation (given in the article), the third part on the third leaf was not there, so it can't be something else that wasn't there. ("there were three leaves of a Hebrew palimpsest of the eleventh century"; "On closer examination it was recognized that the MS. contained two passages from Aquila's Greek version of the Bible.") Do you understand now? --Wiklol (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Wiklol, Interesting find. So you are saying that this paper (granted, 6 pages long from 1899, but academic nonetheless) is all dedicated to the artifact in question?. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus, Yes, there is a comparison here with other versions of the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek, with the Aquila translation provided in these passages. A lot of important information about the meaning of this manuscript is already in the sources for the article, many others I will not have access to, because they are paid. But there is quite a lot of similar work to this, I have so much open in my computer, that I already have problems with the performance of the equipment. Here, for example, it is important: 1) "Aquila's relation to the LXX can now be more closely defined on the basis of the Cairo fragments", 2) "Small as the Cairo fragments are, they are still of priceless value for the criticism of the traditional Hebrew text and of the LXX. A comparison with the Masora Text shows that Aquila's text is, in general identical with the text known to us to-day.", 3) "a manuscripts of this translation lay long in Cairo, and that from this manuscripts a few leaves were saved in the Synagogue Geniza, and have now been so worthily given to the world by Mr Burkitt.". --Wiklol (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an encyclopedia of knowledge not just a pop culture fansite. Ridiculous this sort of thing would be sent to AFD. Dream Focus 02:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me to express the following reasons:
1. Notability#General_notability_guideline "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content": Few fragments of Aquila's translation exist, and the few that do exist have been given importance for understanding the transmission of the Hebrew Bible and inter-relationship between various significant ancient versions and recensions of the Old Testament (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Jewish Encyclopaedia).
2. This manuscript has been important in discussions, due to the presence of the name of God YHWH and the nomina sacra, for scholars of the Old Testament, Jewish studies, New Testament, Early Christianity, Hellenism, Church Fathers.
3. Notability#General_notability_guideline "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material": i.e. F. C. Burkitt and Edmon Gallagher dedicated a specific study to this manuscript [16][17].
4. Notability#General_notability_guideline "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability": Currently the manuscript has references from renowned scholars and high-quality publishers (see current version ).
5. The article can be expanded, but instead of being deleted, it can be kept with a tag that asks it (although in my opinion it doesn't currently need them).
6. I don't know if there are other reasons for deleting this article on the English wiki [18].

In my opinion, this article should remain. Let me ask for help from someone who has contributed a lot to wikipedia with manuscripts (@Leszek Jańczuk:), whose help can be valuable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, To back up claim of substantial coverage of this artifact, can you link to works that discuss it and provide relevant quotations? A lot of people here seem to confuse a wider collection of works by Francis Burkitt with a single artifact from that collection (AqBurkitt). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable Piotrus, is very easy to go to the article and read the references pointing to the bibliography, in the article.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, Respected Jairon, if it is so easy, please provide quotations from such works that discuss the significance of this artifact. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much sense in copying the bibliography from the article and bringing it here. Anyway, please see point 3 of my previous comment and the sources.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, Your first source is a table of content that does not seem to mention the artifact in question. The second source was already discussed and contains a 3-sentence long discussion of the topic, which IMHO is still a 'trivial mention' in the contest of the wider academic paper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the reader, I mention that Burkitt's work dedicated to the manuscript under discussion for deletion here, was republished in 2012 by Cambridge University Press [19].--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, Again, this work is about a series of related artifacts, including but not limited to the one being discussed here. What is notable is the collection, not individual elements of it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cordially invite you to read the article (33 + facsimils pages dedicated to the AqBurkitt) which is not about the Taylor-Schechter collection. In any case, this manuscript is mentioned in reference works. It is not because I say so, the sources confirm it.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

undecided. On the one hand this manuscript is noteworthy. Of the 400,000 or so manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah there is a reason why this one was published already 1897 and others were not and probably will never be published in print. It is one of the very few extant manuscripts that present the translation of Aquila. That alone makes it at least as notable as all the articles on Septuagint or New Testament manuscripts which we keep in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the article is a typical example of the "work" of user Jairon who is not interested in the manuscript but in his mission about the tetragrammaton. In its present state the article doesn't do justice to the importance of the fragment. Deleting it would be a small loss. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There's always one, isn't there?" Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The article has been expanded, and some new sources and arguments have made me conclude this topic may be notable. And nobody else seems to argue for deletion anymore, so... let's close this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faggot Hill[edit]

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

It's highly arguable that the hill in question passes WP:GEOLAND since it is, by the article's admission, "the 985th highest summit in Massachusetts," surrounded exclusively by much more notable features in the Mountains of Massachusetts category. Google News returns four articles for the phrase "Faggot Hill" in quotes, none of which are related to this particular summit. The article itself offers no insight into the hill's significance beyond its paltry ranking in the state's highest peaks. It is, to put it bluntly, a small, non-notable hillock that seems to have earned an article by virtue of its "funny" name, which has also made it the target of a disproportionate amount of vandalism since its creation. MasqueDesRonces (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In all likelihood the only reason this article was created is its unusual name. I don't even know if it could pass WP:GEOLAND because very little information beyond "statistics and coordinates" exists. Ovinus (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This hill does not appear to be notable merely as a hill, nor does it even seem to be notable for being the subject of a controversy over its name. Perhaps the hill and its name aren't famous enough for most local residents to even know what it is officially named. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Eeeesh. We don't have an article for "Nigger Pond" in Plymouth either. The sourcing is suspect as well, FWIW; the USGS site has little more than "It exists," and upon what basis is "peakery.com" a reliable source? Ravenswing 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good point, which I failed to mention. Peakery seems to be a social network for mountaineers, hikers, etc. relying mostly on user-submitted info, so no, not especially reliable by WP standards; the USGS source is the only credible one. MasqueDesRonces (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been deleted from Peakery (Wayback Machine capture from November, live page returning a 404 error), presumably for the same reasons that prompted this AfD, which bring the total sources for this article to... one. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the 969th highest place in Massachusetts, a state with few significant mountains to begin with, there is nothing even close to making it notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the 985th highest peak. The 969 figure is a popular bit of stealth vandalism that IPs re-add every so often... :/ --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 16:55, 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. czar 09:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stirrings Still (journal)[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct journal that was a no-consensus in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature while it still appeared to be in publication, but no further issues came to fruition. Only claim to notability "The first collection of critical essays on American novelist Chuck Palahniuk to appear in print." is weak and I have been unable to source the claim or find any coverage of this journal. StarM 02:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have disappeared without a trace after only a handful of issues. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 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. Tone 22:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Crichton, 2nd Earl of Dumfries[edit]

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

A hoax tag was placed on this page in September 2020. Also, the only source mentioned in this page is Cracroftspeerage, which was deprecated by Wikipedia in 2020 as self-published (meaning not reliable for genealogical information). Another source on the person found using a Google search - Geni.com - is also unreliable as it is an open wiki - a type of self-published source. Ohter sources found on a Google search on this person (thepeerage, wikitrees) are also unreliable due to similar reasoning. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a source: [20] . The Earl of Dumfries page looks most unlikely to be a complete hoax. Not disputing that sourcing could be improved. PatGallacher (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination --Jonalia (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The {{hoax}} tag, placed by Champion, was perhaps inspired by the line "[Crichton] objected to the posthumous execution of Alexander Peden." How, after all, can a dead man be killed? But this is clarified by the article on Peden, which (in a section added in 2005 by AlistairMcMillan, and expanded soon thereafter by Dimadick) states that Penen's corpse was to be hanged out of some facile form of retribution, until Crichton interceded. Though the sources used in the article on Peden do not appear to mention this episode, it is discussed in the The New Statistical Account of Scotland (link): "after [Peden] had been forty days in the grave, a troop of dragoons came and disinterred the body. They brought it in its decaying putrid state to Cumnock, intending to have it hung up in chains on the gallows; but, at the earnest intercession of the Countess of Dumfries, and the Lady Affleck, the Earl of Dumfries interfered, and told Murray that he had erected the gibbet for murderers and malefactors, and not for such men as Peden." (see also History of the County of Ayr).

Together with PatGallacher's source and the Earl of Dumfries page, this appears to put to rest both the hoax theory and the only reason proffered for deletion. I've removed the hoax template accordingly. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posthumous execution is certainly a well-established procedure, Oliver Cromwell is the best-known example, even if there is an element of doubt about what happened in this case. PatGallacher (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that the article is a hoax. But it contains little information other than this person's name, and nothing indicates notability. Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As an earl he would have been a member of the Parliament of Scotland. Membership of a national legislative body is normally enough to confer notability, see the notability guidelines for biographies. PatGallacher (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I could have said merge to Earl of Dumfries, but there's nothing much to merge. From the Earl of Dumfries article, all those redlinks could also be removed IMO — there's no need to have an article on each individual holder of the title, if there's nothing to say about the person other than that they existed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Dumfries. Completely disagree with the assessment to delete when there is clear evidence in Scottish Peerage that he exists which goes against this being a hoax. Also, there is a page with his name on it, so why @ Jonalia, Dimadick, DoubleGrazing have you not considered a redirect?? Govvy (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a privy councillor. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was tagged as a hoax and it clearly is not. The article was nominated for deletion because there are no reliable sources, when there clearly are. As to the question of notability, Crichton is mentioned by multiple authors in multiple books published in the 19th and 20th centuries. If the proof of notability is whether someone appears easily in Google results then god help us. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Privy Councillor and per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - members of a national parliament are always notable. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly insufficient searching on the part of the nominator, who apparently only checked Google Search but not Google Books. ネイ (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of a national parliament, privy councillor. // Timothy :: talk 14:06, 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject likely meets the GNG and was on the cusp of passing the WP:MMABIO when coverage ramped up over his breaking of the COVID protocol. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottman Azaitar[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not fought at least 3 fights in top tier promotion. Fails GNG as fight reports are mainly routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hours before this nomination was posted, Azaitar was in headlines all over the place for breaching quarantine protocols before a fight. Examples: ESPN; TMZ; RT; Bleacher Report. I'm not an MMA fan, yet even I saw this on ESPN before stumbling across the nomination. It seems likely that this is what brought the nominator to the article, which is ironic, since the nomination cites a lack of coverage as a reason for deletion. And even leaving aside the litany of recent sources, the article has plenty of sources which go well beyond "fight reports"; in fact, only four of the 22 sources appear to be fight reports at all. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment" - Fighter got released is a normal event as it is a routine fight report regardless of a loss of a fight, missing weight, violate of covid safely rules. Plenty of UFC fighters got released being passing having at least 3 fights in UFC with source reported of the release. Btw TMZ and RT is not considered reliable sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Usernameunique. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Usernameunique. It wasn't "a normal event". Also, Azaitar (and his brother) has a harrowing, disturbing criminal history and "ties to some of the most notorious men in Germany." ref BloodyElbow.com: From Prison to the King’s Palace: Abu Azaitar’s UFC Hamburg debut marred by criminal past Kosbit4 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Review WP:MMABIO Kent Bargo (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are points to consider on both sides. It's true he fails to meet WP:NMMA, but he was only one day away from his third fight and had won his first two. He was suspended for breaking Covid protocol, but we also don't know what was in the bag. It's not unreasonable, though purely speculative at this time, to wonder if it was performance enhancing or otherwise banned substances. It's unlikely that the guy scaling buildings was the pizza delivery man. The article mentioned by Kosbit4 contains 1 passing mention of Ottman--it was his brothers Abu and Omar who got in trouble with the law. So it's not clear that WP:GNG is met. Because he was so close to getting his third fight, and likely more, I believe he would have easily met WP:NMMA if not for the incident that generated coverage. I'd say he was more notable as a fighter than some fighters that meet NMMA by losing 3 fights. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @Papaursa: so you are saying the page should be kept because this "incident" was very surprising. It does not seem like it, considering the UFC made ridiculous moves to bypassing the COVID-19 laws/health experts in other states just "open up UFC" leaving high number people infected with COVID 19 and Dana White has not worn a mask yet. They should listen health experts by remaining closed until it safe and to avoid further harming others. It does not seem it will get pass WP:MMABIO. Kent Bargo (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I was saying that the page should be kept, I would have voted to keep it. I'm was merely pointing out that there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I haven't decided which side I'm going to come down on, or if I'm just going to stay neutral. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to his COVID-19 shenanigans, he definitely meets WP:GNG now.Victory in Germany (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The COVID-19 rules were designed for Abu Dabi UFC. Its not significant and considering UFC bypassed ways to opened up despite true health experts and laws prevent it from doing soo. Yo saying i can create a page for a random person in the world who did same thing and have page kept. It has to passs WP:MMABIO Kent Bargo (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it is true that the subject fails WP:MMABIO, that is largely irrelevant as the subject seems to pass WP:GNG. Opposed to what the nominator says, not all of the references in the article are WP:ROUTINE, with some being moderately in-depth. Hence a slightly hesitant keep is my !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:09, 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.

[1] ttps://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1387070/its-a-sin-cast-who-is-in-its-a-sin-Olly-Alexander-Keeley-Hawes-channel-4-series

[2] ttps://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/lydia-west/

[3] ttps://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/its-a-sin-lydia-west-and-jill-nalder-discuss-the-power-of-allyship-during-aids-crisis/

[4] ttps://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/lydia-west/

[5] ttps://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a35289710/lydia-west-its-a-sin/

[6] ttps://tarrant-together.com/board-of-directors/

[7] ttps://progresstexas.org/about-us

[8] ttps://www.sanchez4texas.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]