Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 29 January 31 >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Otter[edit]

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

Recreation by same editor of deleted page Daniel Otter. The previous AfD found the BLP of this boxing promoter did not meet notability standards. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Mosfellsheiði air crashes[edit]

1979 Mosfellsheiði air crashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two aviation incidents combined into one article and neither is notable. Military and general aviation crashes are very common and unless they have a WP notable on board not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG as they have received significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant amount of time. These are well known aviation incidents in Iceland and as can been seen in the sources of the article they are still being covered more than 20 years after they happened. The reason they are combined into one article should be obvious. Alvaldi (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep First, I would agree that the two accidents need to be treated as one extended incident; all reportage does the same. And it certainly attracted local ≥interest that persists. The only reason I'm not full on to keeping is that there doesn't seem much international interest, which isn't surprising considering that the initiating incident involved civil aviation, which is rarely notable on its own. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mangoe: As far as I know there are no requirements for Wikipedia articles to have sources from multiple nations, significant coverage in national media of a given country is generally enough. This incident was front page news in all five major national papers in the country [1][2][3][4][5] and had sustained coverage in the months following, mostly due to two things, that fact that three people survived two air crashes in four hours and the revelation of the disarray of the communication abilities of the countries SARS units [6][7]. Alvaldi (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Military and general aviation crashes are very common and unless they have a WP notable on board not notable Unless they otherwise pass WP:GNG, as you know being a long-time editor. And this does. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete significant local coverage of a couple of unexceptional crashes. Obviously big news in Iceland but I don't think it quite meets GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mztourist: The coverage sourced in the article is on a national level, i.e. in the major nationally distributed news media outlets of Iceland but not local town or county media outlets. As per WP:EVENT A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). This is an event still being covered by the major news outlets of the country 20 years later. Alvaldi (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Local as in in Iceland, no coverage outside of Iceland, as I said I don't think it quite meets GNG.Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not meet the requirements for the Wikipedia:PLANECRASH, however significant coverage in national media about the crash does meet the requirements for the WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PLANECRASH applies and that the "aftermath" section of a series of crashes which happened 40 years ago is only a single line demonstrates a general lack of WP:IMPACT --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG supersedes WP:PLANECRASH. WP: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. An event that still receives significant coverage 40-years later pretty much passes that. Alvaldi (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even with that aside WP:AIRCRASH was depreciated for stand-along articles after some pretty acrimonious discussion some time back. (Also yes, the implication that an article can pass GNG but fail a supplemental guideline or essay and thus should be deleted is preposterous). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nom is making a generalization of "Military and general aviation crashes are very common" instead of addressing the GNG passing criteria of this specific topic. Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it passes WP:GNG on a national level per Alvaldi. enjoyer|talk 10:24, 6 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 draftify There seems to be a consensus that this material is not fit for mainspace. If folks want to work on it and submit it through AFC or to merge material in it to Iran–United States relations, they are free to do so. Deor (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-United States relations timeline by leader[edit]

Iran-United States relations timeline by leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is some weird fork of or variation on Iran–United States relations, which has a very extensive chronological history of the relations between the two countries.

This new "timeline by leader" though has a series of "events" which have in many cases nothing to do with the US or Iran-US relations, and adds nothing to the already existing article. At best, if some completely different contents are meant, it belongs in draft. Otherwise it is better simply deleted. Fram (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all of timeline's in wikipedia created after a main articles like Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election so there is 2020 United States presidential election.--Reza Amper (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 and Clarityfiend: I fixed the timeline a little. is there any hope or any advice to change your ideas if I work on this timeline?--Reza Amper (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify immediately and then go through AFC. This article has many sections in non-English text, and many citation errors. It should not have been created in this form in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify -- Before re-uploading, it should have all Persian text translated and the pictures eliminated. If are to have a time-line article, it will be in the nature of a list article which is designed as a navigation aid. The pictures are cluttering up the article. Rulers' names and dates might remain - but we only need years, not precise dates. The title should be Iran-United States relations timeline. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Iran–United States relations. Any relevant information on this page can be covered in prose on that page. KidAd talk 22:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Assuming good faith for people who created this page (I can not check sources on Farsi), this is valid supplementary list to page Iran–United States relations. Obviously, it can not and should not be merged to page Iran–United States relations which is already pretty big. The list per se is seems to be interesting and illustrative, at least for someone poorly familiar with US history as myself. But this is only assuming that the info and referencing are correct. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "events" column could be considered a WP:POVFORK of Iran-United States relations. The main article lists the names of the persons involved during various phases of Iran-US relations so the list, while interesting, adds nothing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Iran–United States relations. There is clearly some good and useful information here but presented in the wrong way. Having a separate article might help with the WP:SIZE of the original, though, so there could be reason to discuss this further after AfD. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the reasons stated in the nomination. This is exactly just a series of "some populer events" which have in many cases nothing to do Iran-US relations. I do believe this is also not a traceable list that lacks showing to future editors "what to add for what". --Kemalcan (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you could create the same article for any pair of countries, what makes Iran and US special? Mr248 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The policy-based arguments for deletion, combined with the source analysis in line with the requirements for GNG which was never refuted, means the consensus exists in this discussion to delete. Daniel (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Story[edit]

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

Non-notable "alternative analysis" writer. All of the sources mention the subject in passing at best, except for an interview with a far-right magazine. Only claim to fame was editing a book by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Google search brought up nothing further, considering this guy is alleged to have been an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Jdcooper (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CAVETOWNFAN: Which ones? The only ones that are not trivial mentions are from unreliable sources. Which fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically, of 12 sources listed in this article, only 5, 9, 10, and 12 even mention the subject. 5 is a trivial mention, 12 is self-published, and 9 and 10 are from an unreliable source. Jdcooper (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As I agree with editor above who wants this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is nothing to see in the references except for two long newspaper interviews. Another conspiracy theory about Edward Heath? The subject pedals consipiracy, and the article does not meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. I see a wall of citations, but on closer inspection, they're not about him, directly. We do not publish articles on every person involved with spy games and conspiracy theories. I would not oppose a redirect to a relevant target. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stotts Tours (Oldham)[edit]

Stotts Tours (Oldham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quick look on the net found they were the first company in the UK to be fined for not auto enrolling their workers onto a pension scheme (added with refs). Definitely notable because of this. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the first offender to be convicted under any legislation is not inherently notable. Mention of the case at Pensions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Automatic_enrolment might be an option but would be undue attention unless there is solid indication that the consideration of this Magistrates Court case on 7-8 February 2018 amounts to " sustained coverage ... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"? AllyD (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I think so, as their public transport licence was then reduced, which although linked, are two reportedly separate news stories and enough I think to make them notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:02, 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. If others think the material here about the violation is encyclopedic (I don't), it can be merged into the article about the law.  // Timothy :: talk  12:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with earlier observation about being at fault in law (the pensions case) does not merit inherent notability. Even though they are the first case, this does not meet WP:NCRIME. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 184[edit]

Greater Manchester bus route 184 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can’t find any significant coverage of this - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG IMO. Oldham Chronicle (x3), SELNEC, David Beilby, are all secondary sources which constitute to this. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CAVETOWNFAN: None of those are significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A history and local controversy over a bus route is not an encyclopedic topic. WP:WWIN. Sources are nn routine mill news stories. This does not meet GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  11:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a local controversy (Oldham Chronicle) and a significant one at that, for that region. Nonetheless, the route has been in operation in one form or another since 1929. Extensions, closures, changes to timetable, and takeovers are not Encyclopaedic. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As impressive as this route has existed for almost a century it still fails the general notability policy, as do most bus routes around the world. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current Approaches in Psychiatry[edit]

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

Non-notable journal associated with the predatory published ScopeMed. Fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Headbomb, what makes you say that this is associated with ScopeMed? Also, the journal was in Scopus from 2014 to 2017. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the 2nd external link and online-access/online-archives links (or [8]). Also, if you don't have WP:UPSD, I recommend using it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason those links render blank pages for me, but if I understand correctly, this journal used to be in some relationship with ScopeMed. However, it now seems to be published independently and also does not appear to be predatory(access is free and authors don't pay a submission or article processing fee). It was indexed by Scopus, which we usually take as satisfying NJournals. That the listing was discontinued is not really relevant, notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Listing in Scopus is generally taken to satisfy NJournals. In the present case, only a few years of the journal are indexed, hence the "weak". --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find it very difficult to access articles to establish notability for this journal. All I could find was something from Northern Clinics of Instanbul on obesity and BMI. EBSCO bombed, Elseiver, you have to apply and wait. Observations above about submissions appear to be valid, and observations about other sources indexing this journal also appear to be valid. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles F. Marshall[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:AUTHOR. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N-V-T[edit]

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

This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal (http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.linguistics.20140301.03.html) published by one of the worst predatory publisher (SA Pub). Most of the references [1-8] only mentions Cook's scholarship in passing, or are from Cook themselves. Everything else [9+] are 'context' reference pertaining to the V and T part of the T-V distinction, and do not establish notability.

The only source that critically evaluates the NVT framework is [9], which does mention it positively.

I'm not a linguist, but the notability of this concept doesn't seem to be established by the current references, and my google searches don't come up with much. I'm myself leaning delete here, and I'm nominating this so this article's notability can be properly vetted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated WP:Articles for deletion/N-v-t distinction, which appears to be essentially the same topic, in 2014. It was soft deleted (which doesn't preclude re-creation). In 2014 I declared it a "non-notable theory", though that was prior to the publication of the 2019 volume Headbomb found a review of. Still, this strikes me as possibly WP:TOOSOON. Cnilep (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON at absolute best, and we should steer clear of predatory journals wherever possible. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: This statement [This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal ...] is incorrect. The article is based on "N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns", Chapter 1, pp 13-34, in "The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems", Paul Bouissac (Ed.), John Benjamons, 2019, Hardbound ISBN 978902720318 and e-Book ISBN 9789027262547

REPLY: This comment [The only source that critically evaluates ...] refers to a book review. There are also references in works relating to a variety of languages, namely English (2) Maicol Formentelli and John Hajek, Indonesian (3)Ester Jakindo, Ilza Mayuni and Yumma Rasyid, Lithuanian (4)Gintare Pavilaiciute, Portuguese(5) Aline Bazenga and Spanish (6) Leanne Schreurs.

REPLY: This comment [I'm not a linguist, but the notability ...] reveals lack of understanding. The linguistic notability of the N-V-T framework of analysis can be better understood, even by someone who is not a linguist, if you refer to references (9) to (24) that list problems found by several scholars throughout the years/decades solution for which is not provided by the T-V distinction but is enabled by the N-V-T model, i.e. answer to the need for the following to be taken into account: a neutral, unmarked approach; types and roles of nominal T and V; grades of T and v; a 'default' form; semantic ambiguities and covert meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook (talk • contribs) original comments

Your 2019 chapter is a follow up to the 2014 article published in the predatory American Journal of Linguistics, so no, my statement is not incorrect. As for my own personal lack of understanding, I freely admit it. But my own personal understanding of the topic is fairly irrelevant to its notability. That someone mentioned issues with "VT" (whatever this is), does not mean that NVT is the answer to these issues. It could be. It could be bunk. I'm not qualified to judge that. But on Wikipedia, we require that these things are recognized in the real world. And that I am qualified to judge. And right now, while the original 2014 article is cited a few times, NVT itself is rarely discussed. There's, so far, one book review that mentions is it positively. This is well-below normal standards of notability on Wikipedia (see WP:GNG), which requires that multiple independent sources comment on the actual substance of the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


REPLY: (Your 2019 chapter is a follow up...)

(1) As explained to you before (23/01/21), The "N-V-T" Wikipedia article is based on Chapter 1 of a book from John Benjamins. An earlier version had been published by AJL, but it is the Benjamins chapter that says in its title "N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns".
(2) You have now changed your words, from "This article is based on concepts..." to "Your 2019 chapter is a follow up to the 2014 article...". Your new statement is also incorrect, as the chapter is not a follow-up but a revised updated version.
(3) The fact that the "N-V-T" of the 2014 journal article is also present in the 2019 book chapter supports its validity. N-V-T has made its way from what you call a "predatory" journal to the John Benjamins publishers.

REPLY: (As for my own personal lack of understanding...)

You point out that your personal understanding of the topic is irrelevant to its notability. Naturally, everyone will know that, as you are not the author.

REPLY: (That someone mentioned issues with "VT"...)

(1) You mention "VT" and comment "whatever this is". Please note that there is no "VT"; you must have misread the text.
(2) You comment that "NVT" "could be bunk" and needs to be "recognized in the real world". As shown on the Wikipedia page, the "N-V-T" has been quoted in several academic works in the real world, on a variety of languages including, in alphabetical order, English, Indonesian, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Spanish. See references 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

REPLY: (There's, so far, one book review that mentions is positively.)

You say that there is "one book review that mentions is positively". Do you mean "mentions it positively"? This may be what you referred also earlier on - "The only source...is (1) which does mention it positively" - though misdirecting the reader to reference 1 while in fact is reference 8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see also my comment above). It's too soon. There is essentially one publication from a reliable source, plus some similar ones from (potentially) predatory publishers, and a handful of papers citing these. The phenomena this paper describe may be WP:TRUE and their treatment valuable to linguistics, but notability is not sufficiently established for Wikipedia yet. Cnilep (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: (This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal...)

A reader looking for what you have to say about the N-V-T page will start by being faced with comments not on N-V-T but on AJL and SAPUB. You say that AJL is a “predatory journal” and, escalating into further criticism, that SAPUB is “one of the worst predatory publisher”. However, what this page is about is N-V-T.
N-V-T is a self-standing work independently from where it has been published; and it has been published more than once and by different organizations in different parts of the world. It appeared in 2014 as a journal article in AJL (see reference 1) and, with some updates, in 2019 as the opening chapter of a book from John Benjamins (see reference 7).

REPLY: (Most of the references [1-8] only mention...)

In references 1-8, 1 and 7 inform of where Cook’s N-V-T can be found, i.e., the 2014 article in AJL and the 2019 chapter in a book published by Benjamins. The remaining are works where N-V-T is quoted and which involve a variety of languages including English, Indonesian, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Spanish.
References 10-24 are not ‘”context” reference pertaining to the V and T part of the T-V distinction’ but works showing limitations in the T-V distinction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook (talk • contribs) original comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geo Swan has improved the article sufficiently such that deletion would not be appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Bartsch[edit]

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

He was the superintendent of a local school district. This is not enough for notability, and there is no special coverage. He had a school named after him, but having a school named after you is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clearly lacks significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Johnpacklambert, if you plan to continue to nominate articles for deletion would you please make a greater effort to keep those nominations fair and accurate?
I know I have pointed out to you, many times, that your previous nominations looked like you were unwilling or unable to comply with the obligations laid upon you by WP:BEFORE. Well, I am going to repeat myself. Once again it looks like you were unwilling or unable to comply with the obligations laid upon you by BEFORE.
Bartsch was more than the first superintendant of a School district. He was one of the most important professors at Fresno Pacific University during its early formative years.
I am going to repeat myself, if you are going to make nominations you have a strong obligation to make them fair and accurate. Anything less is highly disrespectful to the individuals who worked on those articles. Geo Swan (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice rescue work by User:Geo Swan, but I'm not convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. The piece from the Reedley Exponent counts, but we need SIGCOV from multiple independent sources, and FPU publications do not qualify as independent in this case. Can you come up with at least one or two further examples of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources sources? Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went and checked WP:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes to confirm my recollection that, as a Dean, his notability was established by, well being a Dean. Good thing I did, as it actually says "generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis". However, Bartch wasn't just a Dean, he was the young University's first Dean of its School of Professional Studies.

      When Bartsch started, the University was a small religious college, and cash poor. The School of Professional Studies used distance education, correspondence, and its students were not religious students. If I am reading the documents correctly, many of his students were teachers, working teachers, experienced older teachers, upgrading their credential at a time when older teachers had been able to get a teacher's certificate without finishing a Bachelor's Degree, who wanted to keep up in pay and promotion with younger and more qualified teachers, who had to earn a Bachelor's degree before they applied for Teacher's College.

      If I read the source documents properly, this small religious college's expansion to a student body of 10,000 wouldn't have been possible if it hadn't been for the revenue from the distance education to secular students that Bartsch introduced.

      So, I suggest that boosts his Deanship to the level where he measures up to ACADEMIC. That is why I left a keep.

      FWIW he did serve a partial term as Acting President of the University. Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:PROF, WP:BEFORE, and WP:HEY. Based on what's in the article now, the subject clearly passes the relevant notability guidelines. I'm concerned that a reasonable online search was not done prior to the nomination. Superintendents of school districts are not automatically notable, although their policies and decisions can literally be livelihood, life, or death. Professors have several avenues to notability. In any case, Geo Swan did a great job of rescuing this article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 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. Notability is not inherited and therefore the consensus is this doesn't meet GNG. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Stokes[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article that fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the same response to the exact same delete !votes copy-pasted from similar nominations. WP:GNG is a guideline, and WP:SOLDIER is an essay. I count eight reliable third-party sources, including a book that prominently features the guy; is there some reason this doesn't satisfy WP:V and imply WP:N? jp×g 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, we don't see that there are eight RS. I see one or two. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the headcount is clear, the "delete" opinions merely broadly assert non-notability, without discussing why the sources cited in the article do not establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 18:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nom is off-base. It is fine for it to not meet soldier, if it meets gng. Nom seems not to understand this. Nor the editor whose vote is similarly based on only that criterion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been on WP for one day and yet you feel qualified to come to AFD and criticize other Users' deletes? Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes. 2. Is there a rule against it? 3. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. 4. WP:SOLDIER is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. 5. Regardless of that non-policy, non-guideline essay, 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. 6. GNG, in contrast, is an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard. 7. What is important is the extent to which a comment is based on our guidelines, not how long they have been here or even how many similar comments there are. 8. Your attitude is one that some might consider slightly less than welcoming to editors. Which is not quite what the project strives for. 9. Any further questions? 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the obvious assumption is that you are a Sock of a banned User. New Users don't come to AFD and start arguing policy and guidelines. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. (I'm not, btw). The obvious assumption is that you flout the rule that requires you to AGF. And that you are ignorant of dynamic IP addresses, and how at no instance of the user they are assigned. And, at the risk of saying it, you appear to be the sort of editor who instead of saying "welcome" says .. something hostile. Not perhaps the best look one could aspire to. Anyway - the substance of what I said above stands. You should know the difference between an essay and a guideline. And that GNG is always good enough.--2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are we to know? Why don't you create an account? I do know the difference between an Essay and a Guideline, as you would have seen by looking above I referred to both SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A military historian made him "a prominent figure" in his notable book. He had ample coverage on an episode of a show on the History channel reenacting the historically significant battle he was part of. Dream Focus 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is a nice multi-paragraph Newsweek article that goes to GNG that is not yet reflected in the wp article. And there is no indication the above delete voters considered it when voting."Fallujah "Point Man" Earns Silver Star" It, in turn, points to tv station KCRA coverage and Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow.2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep. 1. This need only meet GNG, and as discussed above those votes that were based only on whether it met the essay soldier failed to conduct the right test, and therefore don't count. User:JPxG was right.

2. The a) Newsweek article I link to above devoted to him, and

b) the tv station KCRA coverage linked to in that article (and even excluding c) the Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow which we know exists because it is quoted from but I cannot see), and

d) this LA Times article,[10] and

e) this San Francisco Chronicle article,[11] and

f) this Gold Country Media article,[12] and

g) this National Review article that has a few paragraphs on him,[13]

taken together amply satisfy GNG hands down. And make me puzzle as to how they were missed by nom. It also raises the question as to whether they were therefore not considered by the above delete voters, who had reason to believe a before search was done by nom. This is not a close call. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, that story has to be some of the laziest "journalism" I have ever read. I used to regard Newsweek as a reliable source, but that story comprised of 4 lengthy quotes (2 from a Marine Corps Times story that can't be found and two from a blog) and a tv story definitely makes me question the reliability of their online reporting. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Amyot[edit]

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

Autobiographical (creator = "Yamy") WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires some evidence of distinction, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of enough media coverage about him and his performances to clear WP:GNG. But the roles listed here as his most notable ones aren't really significant ones: in both Yamaska and Les Beaux malaises he had minor guest roles, and in La Job (the Quebec version of The Office) he was the Chris Finch/Todd Packer equivalent, counting as a recurring but not starring role. So none of these roles are "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to clear GNG on his sourcing -- but when I found the article, its only "references" were primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as his own self-published website and his (deadlinked) profile on the website of his agent. And while the French article is longer, it isn't appreciably better sourced; four of its six footnotes are still bad primary sources, and the only two that are actually real media are a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him and a very short blurb in Quebec's equivalent to TV Guide -- so that still isn't enough coverage to get him over GNG, and we can't salvage this just by copying those sources over. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I looked under several possible searches on Google and apps, and found nothing reliable. He has 39 followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 5 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 verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarze Kapelle[edit]

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

I am concerned we may be dealing with a WP:HOAX, perhaps not intentional, but still a WP:TNT-able mess. First. This article about an alleged German WWII conspiracy group doesn't have a German Wikipedia article (one was deleted in 2005 and never recreated since: [14] which is a major WP:REDFLAG). Second, most of the article is not properly sourced, and the current sources appear very weak OR don't mention the topic (for example, Shirer's book is certainly reliable, but it does not seem to mention "Schwarze Kapelle" at all [15]). I couldn't locate a single shciolary paper (GScholar) dealing with this topic. It is mention in passing in some books, but none of the books I see is particularly reliable. Now, some digging reveles the existence of a movie (The Black Chapel, Geheimaktion schwarze Kapelle a European 1959 political thriller film based on the novel Die schwarze Kapelle by Olav Herfeldt. What I am worried here is that some amateur historian confused that novel for a fact, and that error got repeated in some later works. Now, granted, I can find supposedly reliable historians like Bernard Wasserstein mentioning this organization briefly in their books (ex. [16]) but again, I am majorly concerned that no such book cites a reliable source, and no academic, peer reviewed journal article discusses it at any length. In other words, the topic has dubious notability but worse, it may be a hoax or a mistake that has been repeated by misled historians here and there. Note also that a number of books cite Herfeldt's work [17] despite it being described as a novel. Strangely enough, our article doesn't even mention him or his work. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a hoax. The The Oxford Companion to World War II does indeed have an entry for the organisation. References exist [18] Doesn't have an article in the de.wikipedia.org, but it is red linked there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hawkeye7, The book you cite seems to be a reprint of the novel by Herfeldt so I don't think it is a reliable reference. Does Wikipedia Library provide access to 'The Oxford Companion to World War II'? If you can access it, what references does it cite and who is the author of that entry? The topic may be notable, but I am concerned that our article may be full of errors and could be based on some fictional version of the events rather than on whats historians say. (Btw, I got access to Bodyguard of Lies and it does seem to mention this term, but I can't figure out what sources that account is based on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hawkeye7: as Piotr mentions, that's the novel. It's a work of fiction, not a reliable source. Also what I am worried here is that some amateur historian confused that novel for a fact oh geez it's H-45 all over again... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a HOAX, but poorly/unreliably referenced, requires a rewrite based on RS which there seem to be plenty of, even if only passing mentions. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the entire point of this nomination is that those "plenty of RS" appear to spawn from the fictional novel? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going on a quick Google Books search which seems to throw up a lot of different titles referring to Schwarze Kapelle, I haven't looked into whether or not they're each based on the novel. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are quite a few mentions, but it would be very nice if we could show that this concept can be traced to a reliable scholarly source or at least a verifiable historical document (although that would be a bit ORish). I remain concerned that the oldest account of this, cited, is Herfeldt. Now, maybe the description of his work is not correct and it is not a novel (or maybe it is part novel and part research?), or such. German Wikipedia article about the movie based on his novel has an unreferenced claim that his novel was based on some 'report' or such. Bottom line, we need reliable sources here, and it would be great if we could find something predating the novel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Black+Orchestra%22+Germany&btnG= for Google Scholar search results for "Black Orchestra" plus Germany. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was certainly organised opposition by aristocrats such as von Stauffenberg and the idea that this was a hoax seems absurd. Perhaps the objection is just to the title "Schwarze Kapelle" but that certainly has some currency now. Naturally, the best sources will be in German – books such as Rote Kapellen – Kreisauer Kreise – Schwarze Kapellen. This cites Jörg Wollenberg:

    Dabei konnten wir auf eine Erkenntnis zurückgreifen, die der Bremer Historiker und Pädagogikwissenschaftler Jörg Wollenberg schon 1994 mitgeteilt hat: Die Gestapo stilisierte nicht nur die Freundeskreise um die Ehepaare Schulze-Boysen und Harnack zur »Roten Kapelle«, sondern gab auch der »Schwarzen Kapelle« der Oppositionsgruppe in der Wehrmacht-Abwehr ihren Namen.

    Wollenberg was a professional historian, not an amateur. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to enable further analysis of the sources and development of consensus regarding their reliability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a board game made with the name, if that matters -- https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156858/black-orchestra Durindaljb (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Durindaljb, Interesting find, but how does this justify a keep vote rather than a comment? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added this information to the article. Perhaps the board game should have its own entry, but it might not be that prominent. It looks like at least 7,000 copies exist. Perhaps 7,000 is not many copies compared to other board games mentioned in wikipedia or perhaps the 7,000 number is low. Durindaljb (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I checked the articles on all the purported members listed in the Schwarze Kapelle article and, except as "See also", there is only one, Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, that mentions Schwarze Kapelle, but the mention has no citation – the article German resistance to Nazism does not mention Schwarze Kapelle, except as "See also" – while many of the officers listed in the Schwarze Kapelle were involved in anti-Nazi plots, such as the Oster Conspiracy, none of them were in the Schwarze Kapelle - there does not appear to be any independent confirmation that Schwarze Kapelle existed outside of fiction - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:33, 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. There is a clear consensus that the article meets the notability guidelines and therefore that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Invest[edit]

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

Promotional article about a private venture capital firm that clearly fails WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more references and change the article. Ark Invest does not fail WP:NCORP. It has now nearly $30 billion in Assets under management and many mentions in the media. This article was also not intended to be promotional.--Afus199620 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, for there to be an article about a company, it has to have received significant coverage in the press, for things other than shuffling money around, having lots of money, existing, releasing press releases, receiving paid-for awards, or the like. Even billion-dollar asset management firms are usually run-of-the-mill. FalconK (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This company has received significant press coverage. See references to Forbes, Bloomberg, Business Insider, CNBC etc.. More than many firms with own articles in Wikipedia. A deletion would be completely arbitrarily and indiscriminately. The founder Catherine D. Wood also has it's own article. Ark Invest has the largst largest actively managed ETF according to CNBC. Clearly WP:NCORP and not run-of-the-mill.--Afus199620 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the first three references used sound like the article should be about Cathy wood, not this company. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two references just confirm that she is the founder and are intended to do just that. What is wrong with that?--Afus199620 (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an appropriate citation, but it does not help establish notability. FalconK (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough cititations (from reliable sources, with more than frequent mentions) to prove notability. I guess you think I want to promote this company. I'm not. I'm actually living thousands of kilometre away from the NY city metro area and are in no way associated to Ark. Put it into Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list.--Afus199620 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The firm is well known and has significant press coverage. I agree it needs to be cleaned up and made more neutral, but ultimately i suggest the article should remain as per wiki guidelines Tahadharamsi (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the amount of media coverage ARK has received recently Colin dm (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be added to Wikipedia. BUT we cant deny a fact that the major contributor seems to have close relations to Ark Invest as such I have added a COI tag to the article instead. The article needs to be cleaned up and made neutral. DownTownRich (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DownTownRich, why do you think that the major contributor (supposedly me) to this article, has close relations to Ark Invest?--Afus199620 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Ark invest has received a colossal amount of coverage in financial RSes. Needs rewriting, but the subject itself is notable. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a very prominent investment company. --Devokewater (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable, even if the article needs a ton of work. Covered once again in Bloomberg today. — Mainly 17:31, 5 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. Pretty much per Sandstein; some of the more recent comments are more substantive, but some aren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landspeeder[edit]

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

Since this is a Star Wars topic I am skipping a PROD and going directly to AfD. Unlike some other SW vehicles, landspeeder is hardly a household name. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement; it's an element of the background that few noticed, so there is even no plot summary, just some information from niche (and WP:PRIMARY and/or not independent, so not sufficient for establishing any notability) Star Wars books for die hard fans like Star Wars Complete Vehicles New Edition. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, a passing mention here and there is the best I could see, and nothing seems in-depth or reliable. I do wonder if some sort of a merge with the Speeder bike (not a very good article, neither, but slightly more recognizable as a name, I think?) could save some of the content here, otherwise a redirect to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles might be the best alternative to outright deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It seems quite likely that the landspeeder is known to most households and there's certainly a LEGO model, just like the Deathstar and Star Destroyer. The nomination is just some vague ideas about cleanup while the claims that there's no coverage are false, as usual. For example, Perspectives: Sounds of Cinema: What Do We Really Hear? explains that the sound effect was devised as "cars on the Los Angeles Harbor freeway heard through a vacuum cleaner pipe" which "reflects its owner's youth by producing high-pitched frequencies that match the characteristics of his voice". Insofar as the nomination recommends an alternative to deletion, it is not appropriate here. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, the existence of a LEGO toy is hardly relevant for notability. And the academic article you cite mentions the topic (landspeeder) twice (in that many sentences), and is the classic example of trivial (passing) type of a mention that does not suffice to establish notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence of toys such as the LEGO model refutes the nomination's unsupported assertion that "landspeeder is hardly a household name". The academic paper is WP:SIGCOV in that it supplies independent and reliable facts about the topic, demonstrating that it has been noticed and that we have material for our article. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andrew Davidson, Subjects of most LEGO sets are not household names. But nobody is expecting you to change your vote, Andrew, don't worry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's interesting to note that there are numerous LEGO models of the landspeeder in its various incarnations. There is so much coverage of these that they are notable as a subset of the topic. For example, this review starts "Luke Skywalker's X-34 Landspeeder is definitely among the most recognisable vehicles from the Original Trilogy." while this book details the various versions, "The first major redesign of Luke's landspeeder is two studs wider than the 1999 version..." You see, Lego Star Wars is now a major brand in its own right and so is well known to many households. We need more pages to cover this topic fully, not less. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews are out there for this thing in toy form. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17464476/radio-flyer-lukes-landspeeder-toys-star-wars-play-test Coverage exist in various reliable sources of whenever someone builds one on their own. You click the link at the top of the AFD for searching for all the Wikipedia considered reliable sources, and get a massive number of results to look through. Dream Focus 15:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, A review of a toy of a fictional entity is not relevant to the notability of a fictional entity, per WP:NOTINHERITED. And WP:GOOGLEHITS=notability logic has been discredited in AFD for about a decade. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its the same thing. Be it a review of it as a toy, something in a movie, something someone built in their backyard, or whatnot. And I was not mentioning Google hits, I was just pointing out how incredibly easy it was to find ample reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides the sources brought up by other editors, my WP:BEFORE reveal reviews of the vehicle in toy form as well as multiple articles covering homemade recreations of the vehicle. The nominator has again made misleading representations about Wikipedia guidelines and policy; an essay authored by individual Wikipedia editors was presented as a "requirement", and has an editing pattern of misusing AfD to discuss potential merge targets for the nominated articles. Subjective opinions about the topic's notability were made as opposed to a proper source by source analysis found in the article as well as elsewhere on Google, so there is in fact no clear argument for the article to be deleted outright. The nature of this kind of rationale is considered inappropriate per global consensus by other Wikipedia editors, the discussion should be closed on a procedural basis, and any discussions about mergers or redirect targets should be made on the article's talk page. Haleth (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not clean-up, and the nominator knows this. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The existence of a LEGO version of a toy or a few passing comments about how its sound was designed is nowhere close to what WP:GNG requires. The above comments are not grounded in any recognizable policy outside violating stuff such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NPA/WP:AGF in general. How Piotrus can survive this toxic fans-vs-Wikipedia environment, I don't understand. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And how exactly is your ad hominem and uncivil attacks on other editors who disagree with you or your favorite editor non-toxic or productive in any way to this AfD or other deletion discussions? Haleth (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Basically fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mere presence of fancruft is not evidence of non notability. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lar, No, but the lack of any other serious coverage is. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is refuted by the significant amount of out-of-universe coverage cited in this article. Haleth (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would be less concerned by this article if the "Depiction" section were thrown out, or if this article were merged with another. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will focus on the "12 different LEGO sets that are models of a given thing are not themselves evidence of notability" claim. It doesn't pass the reasonableness test. The LEGO Group is the largest toy company in the world. They nevertheless produce a finite number of different sets each year. When we factor out their own properties (Ninjago, Friends, and so forth), and factor out generic (police, generic houses, and so forth) sets, there are only a few hundred at most different topics or characters or props mentioned or covered. They very much care about how notable a particular prop is, and they are driven by their research. It is clear to me that if LEGO have chosen to model the Landspeeder, not just once, but multiple times, they have judged it to have wide appeal and to be widely known. It rises above mere fannish, but enters the realm of general awareness. So it's clearly a keep to me. If the article is crufty, fix it.. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lar, Fix it how? By adding a list of LEGO sets? We are not a Brickpedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By removing the cruft, of course. I'm pretty sure you're not new here, and do know how the editing process works. Once we've cleared up how to edit Wikipedia effectively, maybe we could return to the topic at hand, which is that Landspeeder is indeed a notable thing, worthy of an article, regardless of how much you disdain it. The massive amount of marketing behind it is both evidence of notability, and an explanation why it has a significant presence in our collective consciousness. Even if you're not conscious of it. ++Lar: t/c 06:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lar, Unless you want to use marketing sources like publisher description of relevant LEGO toys, we still need reliable sources that discuss the significance of this cultural object. Since you are not new here, I am sure you are familiar with requirements such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. So do show us which reliable, independent sources discussed the cultural (or marketing, even) significance of this concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sufficient evidence of notability has been given to satisfy anyone who doesn't have a preconceived bias. This should be closed as keep not as inconclusive. Further, when people point out how many different replicas exist, or how many copies have been sold, you try to wriggle away by saying that we should write an article about the toy instead. THat suggestion is daft and would require all sorts of foolish circumlocutions to end up with an article that was essentially the same, but at the wrong location. I find your repeated moving of goalposts to be unhelpful and tiresome. Further, I find your repeated assertions that policies say things they do not, and your attempts to use discredited essays as if they were policy to be even more unhelpful. Stop. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the toys and replica aren't evidence of notability. Only significant third party coverage in reliable sources is notability. Not toys. Not editorial opinions about fame. Not blogs. Even the Kanye West blog isn't a reliable third party source, and that's even if you accept the gross name-dropping that Kanye West actually spent time writing his own blog. Jontesta (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the toys get significant coverage in reliable sources, then do they not pass the general notability guidelines? And having an article for each one of them is pointless, best to have them altogether here, with background information about where the design came from, and other information about it. Dream Focus 22:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:MOS subsections for fictional elements in film, anime and manga clearly make allowances for merchandise created in the likeness of fictional characters to be discussed as part of the subject article's marketing: WP:FILMMARKETING, Anime and manga, and WP:VG/CONTENT or Video game characters. If there is actual reception to the marketing element, that is even more relevant to the purpose of building a generalist encyclopedia. Sure, Landspeeders are technically not characters with a voice, but they are fictional elements all the same, and not truly alive or "real". Also, your assertion that a toy can be notable while the thing it portrays is not, is not supported by any guideline, policy, or common sense. Toys which are licensed merchandise in particular derive their marketability from their branding or ability to recreate the likeness of the entity it is based on, not the other way around. The question of whether notability is inherited or not is another essay that does not form part of the guidelines for Wikipedia's deletion or notability policies, and a purely subjective opinion that is not a compelling argument in deletion discussions. For editors who subscribe to the school of thought that a fictional topic must have some kind of real world impact, sources which discuss success or obscurity of specific merchandise since there is actual commercial activity involved, or sources which covers a person's real life efforts to recreate the likeness of the entity as an indicator of significance, clearly meets that demand for verification which is policy. Haleth (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haleth, Unless you are seriously suggesting that the existence of merchandise, measured by volume, is sufficient for notability, please tell us which reliable, independent sources discuss the cultural (or marketing, even) significance of this concept? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand my point. I am not talking about the mere existence of merchandise, and in any event we should not describe them indiscriminately without context or detail. I am talking about the fact that reliable sources exist which discuss the significance of the licensed merchandise which recreates the likeness of the subject (sometimes as a review), and the various MOS clearly makes allowances for licensed merchandise of the subject topic to be part of an article's scope of contents. The Verge piece linked by Dream Focus demonstrated this point: the article's tone would have been very different if the kid was riding a bike instead of a Landspeeder replica, and the author goes into detail about the perceived discrepancies between the cultural and market value of the Landspeeder merchandise, which is not something a Star Wars fansite or wikia would normally cover since it isn't in-universe cruft. People building replicas of a Landspeeder and having reliable sources covering their exploits is a sign of real world cultural impact. I am assuming you have already read those sources and disagree, so you are entitled to your opinion to disagree. If you had made a merge proposal on the talk page to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles instead, I may have considered supporting a selective merge. But, you are advocating for outright deletion here, or are you, because you went on a tangent about a possible merger with another article? Your original argument cited issues with the state of sourcing and the prose, and then concluded that it fails GNG. Per WP:NEXIST as pointed out by myself and others, that is not a valid application of Wikipedia policy, and should be discounted by the closer when evaluating the consensus. Haleth (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haleth, Ok. Can you link to the "reliable sources exist which discuss the significance of the licensed merchandise which recreates the likeness of the subject"? Outside [21], which is written by a father about his 5-year old son? Because source =/= sources. A single article about a model of a film gadget that doesn't discuss the movie gadget but focuses on the replica is very borderline. This topic still very clearly fails WP:GNG - we haven't found anything about the topic (fictional car), and the best we did is an article about a replica build for a kid that, again, focuses on the replica, not to the film gadget. What we need are sources which discuss the film gadget - conception, design, reception, cultural significance, etc. Inferring from the existence of LEGO sets or models that there is significance is OR/SYNTH. But let's de-escalate. A merge can always be considered and is a perfectly good outcome of a deletion discussion, although I don't see what is valuable here enough to merge to the list you mentioned. This level of detail, with such inadequate sourcing, seems ok on wikia/fandom but we have a bit higher standards, which don't see met (per sources showing significance of this concept being limited to a single article about a derivative toy). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any evidence from my WP:BEFORE that it's a borderline case, and again you are moving the goal posts by focusing on the actual toy itself, not the subject topic it is licensed from. My issue is with your contradictory stance on the issue of merging as well as your fixation on using AfD to force a cleanup of the subject article when the topic is clearly covered by WP:ATD, if not a Keep. With regards to your lengthy response, I'll take the view of this essay in the interest of brevity. Here you go: none of the sources contain trivial mentions only, and if you feel that it's still insufficient, there's plenty more on Google Search where it came from. Haleth (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are the same. The sources specifically are talking about the fictional vehicle in question, not just any other Star Wars vehicle or ship. One source doesn't even talk about toys or replicas, but about the hypothetical future of the taxi service, so I am not sure if you have even read any of it. More importantly, they demonstrate eminent notability of the subject topic, and all are within a real world context in particular. Anything in-universe about the Landspeeder's place in the Star Wars setting would be labelled as cruft or WP:ALLPLOT that you would not like. Haleth (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haleth, The article about taxis (on niche sf portal) doesn't critically discuss landspeaders, they are used as an example. One could use any other fictional flying car in that article and it wouldn't change anything, except it's a baitclick portal so it tries to reference whatever is recently popular (The Mandalorian). Shrug. Right now this looks like no consensus, so be it. Maybe we will revisit it in 5-10 years and maybe our standards will have evolved further by then - or maybe there will be good sources and no revisiting will be necessary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • San Francisco Examiner is not a "niche portal" as you are trying to pass off as. While not as eminently respectable as the New York Times, it's been publishing since 1863 with a credible claim for being the highest circulation newspaper in the San Francisco and Peninsula area even well into the 2010's. With all honesty, your persistent arguments are grasping at straws and has less to do with an insinuated lack of standards on Wikipedia and more to do with WP:DONTGETIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Haleth (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, please provide an example of "A toy can be notable while the thing it portrays is not (in theory, at least)" because that's really a strange notion. I think you're just making stuff up to try to move the goalposts. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lar, I am not moving anything. I am just not seeing sources that show the significance of this fictional entity which I consider separate from the toys based on it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you. You are "just not seeing" things. However I submit that's not because they don't exist, but rather they don't fit your preconceived notions. If something has had multiple representations made of it, in multiple media, it is the "something" that's likely notable, not the myriad representations. Suggesting that people write myriad articles about the representations, instead of one about the thing represented is at best, daft. ++Lar: t/c 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (addendum: I do however, want to note that you successfully deflected me for a bit... I repeat the challenge. Give us some examples of things with multiple representations which are notable, while the thing itself is not notable. Go ahead... I'll wait... but if you can't, it puts paid to your notion that there should be an article about each toy but not about the thing represented ... ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
          • Lar, Interesting challenge. We have articles on possibly notable toy series (products) that depict some fictional, non-notable characters, either completely (ex. Furskin Bears) or partially (ex.Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, Star Wars Miniatures). We have articles on hoaxes and memes and such that mislead some people into thinking the real thing is real (you know, exploding whale and such). There is stuff like Risley Park Lanx, an artifact that's notable because it is a replica (the original doesn't seem to warrant a separate article). Likewise, there are replica buildings or such like Roman Villa Borg for which the original doesn't appear notable. Hinomoto Oniko is a notable fictional character (design?) based on a non-notable (presumably) saying/concept. Statue of Unicorn Gundam is a notable sculpture of non-notable mecha RX-0 Unicorn (but the type of the macha is notable, Gundam (fictional robot)). There is a bunch of other sculptures of non-notable fictional characters (Bagheera Fountain, Dickens and Little Nell (Elwell), Grigory and Aksinya (sculpture composition)). The later examples are probably closest here to the argument that a replica of a Landspeeder or a type of toy based on it may be notable, while the fictional entity is not. Doing this research led me to some weird stuff, btw. Maschinen Krieger ZbV 3000 - a fictional universe that doesn't appear to be based on any notable work or artist - probably should meet AfD... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You found more than I expected. That was informative, thanks for doing the research. But are there any cases of *multiple* articles, each deemed notable, about a non notable thing? Remember, that's what you suggested was needed. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lar, Can you clarify which multiple articles I suggested may be notable here? FYI I think the car replica might be notable, but I don't think the toys (LEGO etc.) are (and anyway the mention of LEGO landspeeder(s) can exist in Lego Star Wars).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I believe you were admitting earlier that Landspeeder (toy) was notable (since you can't wave away the millions, or even billions, of instances of such toys) while Landspeeder itself was not. The issue of course is that you can't really have that article... which toy are you referring to? There are so many different ones, of many different sorts. You've painted yourself into a corner. Which you then tried to get out of by saying the toys aren't notable. That dog don't hunt, there is plenty of evidence of notability for the toys. ++Lar: t/c 06:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Lar Sigh. I never said the toys are notable, I said, in theory, they might be but usually almost never are, and in this case, I don't see what's different. The only thing that may be notable in this mess is the 1:1 toy-replica build by a fan for their kid which seems to have received some coverage, but I am not fully sure that it is as I think all references here are relatively superficial and of borderline reliability at best. At the end of the day, what we have here is fancruft mixed with trivia...
  • Keeep. per discussion above. Subject article includes secondary references which meet WP:SIGCOV. Enough information included which show it meets WP:GNG too. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the sources above on the toy and replica versions which demonstrate some real world notability of the fictional vehicle. It's clearly not Millennium Falcon level of notability, but enough to pass the minimum standard in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply to a question on my talk page: I could have closed this as no consensus, but in my view there is a lot of general observations about toys and so forth, but not much discussion of the actual sources that establish (or don't) the notability of this topic. I hope that after the relisting the discussion will go into more detail about whether these sources are sufficiently in-depth and reliable. Sandstein 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Given your comments and the reasoning behind your decision, I am of the opinion that you should recuse yourself from either closing or further relisting this particular discussion, since you have already formed a view as to the subject matter's notability instead of following the emergent consensus. Haleth (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toys based on a fictional concept are a real-world effect of said concept. As long as these toys don't have separate articles, they should be considered as a sub-topic of the concept which inspired them. If there are secondary sources discussing such toys, they should be included when considering if WP:GNG is fullfilled. In this case, I think there is enough coverage in secondary sources when taking together sources about the prop in the films and the toys (and I assume there's also plot-summary information for the land-speeder as it is in-universe), there is enough to keep this article.
Sorry, this was partly about toys again. Two additional secondary sources talking about how the landspeeder was filmed, which I think have not been discussed yet, are The Cinema of George Lucas and From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, All those Star Wars sources are licensed, which makes them not independent. And dependent sources are not helpful for establishing notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it almost reads like you'd really prefer that Star Wars itself wasn't notable, it would be so much more convenient in your crusade against what you see as a vast sea of cruft... But Star Wars is notable and it's tiresome to try to argue that Star Wars itself isn't. The landspeeder is one of the core concepts, a widely used and widely available in universe vehicle, from one of the most successful and most notable fictional universes there is... and it has lots of coverage in many sources. Sometimes trying to cut away notability with a thousand cuts (you've disputed every one of the myriad sources presented, with one technical objection after another) just doesn't pass the reasonableness test. As here. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the closest to an iconic movie vehicle there is. "Licensed" sources do not stop them from also being independent sources - the DK books are indeed reliable secondary sources. A primary source is something coming direct from Disney, Lucasfilm, etc.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read all the arguments above, and I find myself in the speedy keep camp. Timmccloud (talk) 23:21, 5 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. Not going to relist this again given minimal input through two 7-day periods. No prejudice to a renomination if so desired in the immediate future. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World[edit]

Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK Sungodtemple (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll do some searching, however offhand it looks like it's pretty widely cited as a source so it seems likely that there's probably some sourcing out there other than the two reviews in the article. Not saying that Google Scholar is a RS, just that there's likely more mention of the book out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 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 merge to Dolomites Gold Cup Race. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa d' Oro delle Dolomiti[edit]

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

Duplicate article since 2013(!), merge with Dolomites Gold Cup Race. Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, obviously. I'm not sure this is the correct way to go about this, but I suppose it bring more attention than a lot of merge discussions seem to get. A7V2 (talk) 23:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhyamanthri (1985 film)[edit]

Mukhyamanthri (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE that I was able to find. The article has not been improved since 2015. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Renfrew, Ontario[edit]

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

Pointless and poorly referenced list of entirely non-notable people. This doesn't list all, or even most, mayors that this town has ever had -- the town was incorporated in 1858, which means it's had mayors for 163 years, but this list only names a random selection of six of them and sources just two of those six, and the sources are a self-published resolution on the city's own website, a user-generated and unreliable family genealogy, and a local history book authored by one of the mayors. This is also a small town with a population of just 8K now, which means its mayors get no "inherent" notability freebies just for existing as mayors -- and as for how well-maintained the article is, the "current" mayor named here isn't even the actual incumbent anymore. So there's really no point in maintaining a woefully incomplete and badly-sourced list of people who wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia articles anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The creator of this article apparently didn't have access to any reliable source that listed all the mayors of this town. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. A town of 8,000 people does not need an entire article about it's mayors. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per explained in nom. Pilean (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:52, 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 speedy delete. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afroludi[edit]

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

Fraudulent sourcing (the reliable sources are not about this person), the rest are black hat spam sources. The claims of hit singles are not correct and the subject did not create the track "Smells Like drill spirt". Insignificant number of plays on YouTube and Spotify. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my vote from 'delete' to 'speedy delete' due to almost every single source failing verification Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Speedy Delete - Good luck to the kid as his management plants press releases in unreliable African websites, but a Wikipedia article with fake sources will not be part of that promotional effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As per above. Pilean (talk) 16:22, 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. (Not a soft-deletion as a BLP.) Daniel (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minx Arcana[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a dancer, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for dancers. The notability claim here essentially boils down to the fact that she exists, rather than that she's achieved anything that would qualify as a noteworthy distinction or honour, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of venues where she's performed and an event calendar listing, rather than media coverage analyzing her significance. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the work is way too promotional. In theory that could be overcome, but when the souring itself is all promotional works it really cannot be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teko (Company)[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance. A7 tag removed by first-time editor. Sources are primary, witten by ghostwriters in stead of reporters and deprecated per WP:FORBESCON Vexations (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ransara Jey - thank you for your comment. I sincerely hope that this does not discourage you from editing Wikipedia. There are many notable topics that require help from volunteers such as ourselves and your contributions are welcome. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources cited do not prove notability of the subject. Luciapop (talk) 07:42, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Sharma ( TV Actor )[edit]

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

Though he appears to have been the lead on Chandrashekhar (TV series), doing a search for his name and that title only yields passing mentions at Tellychakkar, an entertainment site, i.e. not a vetted news source. Similar lack of references searching his name with other show titles. So, fails WP:GNG, and with one major role, seems to fail WP:NACTOR as well.

Note for anyone else researching, that there are probably many Karan Sharmas in Indian entertainment. Karan Sharma (TV actor) exists as well, so please consider if you have the correct one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the nomination that Cyphoidbomb has made and, making similar checks, I find the same result. I can be persuaded to alter my opinion with the unearthing and incorporation of better references. Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Two competing policies being at war with each other can't be solved out at AfD. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer)[edit]

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

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (123), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[22] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:CRIN and given that this guy was from NZ, I'd hedge my bets there's archive sources for him. StickyWicket (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All these AfDs are for NZ cricketers, from one team (Otago), only surnames A and part of B. There may be good sources for all of these, but so far in most cases no one has unearthed them; so basing a "keep" on the belief that sources should exist seems a tad optimistic. In any case, if these are redirected (or deleted) and sources are later found, then the articles can always be resurrected. An AfD is not "delete for ever", but "until the necessary sources are presented". Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources for this one? This is a bit harder than usual, because there was an English cricketer of the same name, but all that can be found are mirrors of Wikipedia, or statistics databases[23][24]. Searching with his year of birth and death, place of birth, or middle name, doesn't give any better results. Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, but by consensus that only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is totally unreliable for cricketers such as these who have played very few matches (recent NSPORT discussion here). Fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers, for whom he played three of his four matches. This is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you wish to help find sources, an AfD discussion is not the way to go about it. Bobo. 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:NCRIC. The point of that is that at this level there will be enough reliable sources, it is just a matter of someone putting in the time to find them. The existence of the page is the best trigger for that. Moonraker (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. Just because it passes WP:NCRIC doesn't mean it can just go through without making sure it reaches GNG. Kline | vroom vroom 19:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As per above fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article needs expanding not deleting as I searched for Ackroyd in New Zealand papers on NewspaperArchive around the time he played and I got 208 results for Ackroyd between 1900-1910. Of course some of those won't be that cricket player but there are sources out there. Examples being here, here and here to name a few. HawkAussie (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mentions in routine sports coverage (match reports and scorecards) does not equate to WP:SIGCOV of the individual. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CRIN, which is still the relevant guideline here despite attempts to remove it. Also appears to have plenty of contemporary mentions (though some evidence also to suggest that he was known by his second forename, not his first). Johnlp (talk) 12:02, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfields (company)[edit]

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

Tried to clean up this advertising, but decided to nominate for the deletion. Fails WP:NCORP. There are some press mentions like this one at The Australian Financial Review, but it looks like the article is based mainly on company-sponsored press-releases. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see anything in the article that passes WP:NCORP My search did not find anything to add. Note "I notice in the article history that the afd template was removed by 3 different IPs" Jeepday (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for UPE. MER-C 14:21, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Akerlof[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Associate professor with middling cites on Scholar. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from parents Janet Yellen and George Akerlof. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citability is too low, and looking at the CV[25], there is nothing else there to indicate passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of WP:PROF or other notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cited 51 times with an h-index of 5. He only has one coauthor, so difficult to do subfield authorship comparisons, but I don't think that's even necessary. Pretty clearly does not meet PROF or other notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. Cuoxo (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the child of a former head of the Federal Reserve is not a sign of notability. That is the only way Akerlof would pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kern Lake, California[edit]

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

Early topos label this "Kern Lake Ranch", and it's obviously a ranching/farming establishment on every topo and aerial since, sitting in the same rectangle of land and surrounded by fields, and still there today as a J G Boswell facility of some sort. Not a community, and I see no notability as a farm/ranch. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Ault[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An airstrip and warship was named after him which are "significant award or honor"s and so pass WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Arguably played a significant role in the attacks on Lae and Salamaua and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus one Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of SOLDIER, but doing a Google Books search brings up sufficient mentions of him in various books that I believe amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep combined the mentions, the Silver Star and the airstrip and warship all together squeak this past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 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 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 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
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, overwheling 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/Silver Star/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.
A warship and an airstrip were named for him.
As at stands, this is a well developed article. And the existing sources have been ignored by the nominator and the DELETE voters. WP:Preserve.
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 (☎) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently passes both WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Squeaks pass WP:GNG.--Kieran207 talk 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm seeing a lot of issues with this discussion, starting with wondering why people are suggesting merging this with the Bauer article when it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ault. If nothing else that makes nearly all the "merge" recommendations non-contributory to a consensus. Second, inclusion in a group nomination that was procedurally closed as unmanageable really doesn't bear on this nomination; it would have been nice to have mentioned that, but as far as the discussion is concerned, trying to make an issue of it is an attempt to undo the "without prejudice for renomination" close of the previous nomination.
All that said, while there is a bio here, everything that isn't the incident inspiring the medal award is unsourced, and frankly, it's pretty mundane. There were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes, so having a ship named after him in those classes isn't that exclusive an honor. So we're back to the Navy Cross. Is it enough to make this fellow's story, by itself, worthy of an article? WP:SOLDIER says no; the Navy Cross is not at the highest level, and having a ship/facility named after him is not one of the criteria, so he would have to pass WP:GNG directly, which seems unlikely. At this point I'm not going to offer a definite opinion, but so far I'm not seeing anything that wouldn't support redirecting to the USS Ault article and ensuring that the latter described, in brief, the action which led to the Navy Cross award. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. (What the heck does he have to do with the Harry F. Bauer?) Unlike claims in other recent Afd nominations, he did play a significant part in a major battle, and is mentioned both in the Battle of the Coral Sea and by various sources. He also has a Naval Historical Foundation article. That, and not the ship named after him or the Navy Cross, is what puts him barely over the top as far as notability is concerned IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NHF article is a very lightly edited version of the WP article. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still, the NHF thought enough of him to post it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article comes from one of a couple of blog-like features, all posted by a single person. It's a fairly random walk through various historical vignettes, ranging from well-known persons and major battles to "Sailor of the Day" sort of material. I'm just not seeing how "whatever catches the poster's fancy" adds up to notability.Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit: [26] by User:7&6=thirteen pasted a swathe of discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer onto this discussion, I suggest s/he fixes it. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep And stop nominating these perfectly valid articles constantly. Having a warship named after you is a significant recognition of his notability. This article is referenced and well developed. Dream Focus 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the consensus at WT:MILHIST#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Where independent reliable sources are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO, people who had ships named after them should be covered as part of the article on that ship. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+redirect to USS Ault. Having a US destroyer named after you is not a major distinction, and the Navy Cross, while a major award, is not at the level where anyone is going to write 6,000+ articles to cover all recipients. What it says in the ship article is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Clamage[edit]

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

The sole claim to notability Clamage's documentaries have been repeatedly featured in national venues, such as the prestigious New York Film Festival, winning him numerous top prizes. is unsourced, and I cannot find any evidence to verify the claim. The references in the article are mostly primary sources establishing family ties, but it does not appear his films were notable StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 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 Speedy Delete per G4. Salted per AFD discussion. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Tagoe[edit]

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

Current sources doesn't pass WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a completely unsourced claim that he is Lee Peltier's brother, what else have you added this time? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added more sources, corrected the format and added the see also section (Which you removed). So, G4 section clearly not applied here. Piedgud (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those changes address the reasons for deletion, which are failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes WP:NSPORT as he has played in the senior-level professional league. Piedgud (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT, still non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What league listed at WP:FPL as being 'fully professional' has he played in ? GiantSnowman 17:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He plays for FC Vilniaus Vytis under I lyga and A Lyga league which is listed under WP:FPL. Piedgud (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Lyga is listed at WP:FPL under Top level leagues which are not fully professional. Playing in this league does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: As per wikipedia notability guidelines whatever leagues are listed in WP:FPL will be considered for notability. Piedgud (talk) 18:07, 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. I'm not persuaded by the argument that any single source is sufficient to meet the GNG, particularly a short death notice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry A. V. Post[edit]

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

The only coverage I could find was the brief New York Times obit cited in the article, which isn't enough to establish GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep obit in New York Times arguably satisfies GNG. Weak Delete per Eddie891 below, short obit in NYT does not satisfy GNG and so unless other RS are provided SIGCOV isn't met. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearing in mind that he died over a century ago (in 1914), a New York Times obituary alone should be enough to meet . Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwardx and Mztourist: That's not the case and goes directly against consensus. See the relevant discussion, specifically many years ago [...] the NYT published short death notices; the consensus here suggests these shorter pieces are not an assertion of notability. I don't see how this can be considered anything other than a short death notice. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above explained by Edwardx. Cuoxo (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no claims in the article that imply the subject is notable; he was born, he had a job, he was in the service, he had children, he died. The hurdle is WP:BASIC Neither the article nor my search show sufficient reference to get over the hurdle. Jeepday (talk) 18:38, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Silverio Mendoza[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E of a person notable only for having had a minor local street renamed after him following his death. This is not significant enough to make him permanently notable for the purposes of an international encyclopedia -- a very large percentage of all streets everywhere (not all, certainly, but a lot) are named after local people for one reason or another, so this can't be an automatic notability freebie for every single person who ever had a street named after them. It would take a lot more evidence of sustained international significance, passing the ten year test, to make him notable enough for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 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. I'm not seeing sufficient sourcing to back up the keep comment, but if this is a TOOSOON situation and new (reliable) sourcing pops up, hit me up for an undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waterflame[edit]

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

Not notable artist, has only 200K subs on YT and is only famous for making GD music, and some complete paragraphs have no sources 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination). –Cupper52Discuss! 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, The Guardian source seems to be self-published, other sources are non-notable blogs. Searching did not provide any better sources. Fails WP:BAND. FozzieHey (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete Comment I mean. Geometry Dash is notable and they did write songs for it, but notability is not inherited, so I guess that's not good reasoning. I definitely enjoy his music, but that's an WP:ILIKEIT reasoning, so that isn't allowed either. I really want to !vote Keep here but there just isn't any valid reason to. casualdejekyll (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe WP:BAND criteria 7 is met here? I don't know. I'm just dredging up stuff to support one of my favorite artists here. I shouldn't be !voting here, I'm gonna strike and replace with Comment. 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep subscriber count isn't relevant for notability. Most content in the article is sourced, and that which is not can be removed, but that is no reason to delete an article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see how this passses WP:GNG, no sources seem to be reliable and are just from random blogs or music companies that are linked to the subject. FozzieHey (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:ENT point #2 could be taken as including subscriber count... but the 374k that his channel is sitting at right now is not nearly the amount of articles on YTers that have survived AFDs. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made articles on YouTubers that would definitely survive AfD with significantly fewer subscribers. The subscriber count is not relevant. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I enjoy his music, but there are rules on WP. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after an extensive search, the only thing I found that might count towards GNG is the article in Natt & Dag, which might be a reliable source (it has an editorial team, so it's not a blog) but it alone is not enough to pass GNG. Everything else I could find was either unreliable, in passing or a primary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does get us halfway there (my interpretation of GNG are two in-depth sources). It's one. But yes, if there is nothing else, this does fall on the wrong side of the notability policies. Too soon. Weak delete for now, pin me if more sources are found. Ps. We have several WP:INTERVIEWs but those are hardly quality sours. Linked ru wiki article has +3 refs but nothing jumps out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 4 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. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runixx info tech[edit]

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

There are already two versions in draft space Draft:RUNIXX INFO TECH and Draft:RUNIXX INFO TECH PVT. LTD. so no point in sending a third, almost identical version, there. In my opinion, this isn't eligible for WP:A7 as being multinational is a claim of significance. The company exists and is registered but I can't see it passing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A very, very new business that is potentially trying to use Wikipedia to gain exposure.

I think a deletion discussion is now required. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akeel Francis[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Gakos[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer that has never played at professional level. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL according to Tribuna and the Soccerway source in the article. A Greek search yielded nothing and I only found a passing mention and another passing mention elsewhere. Looks like a WP:GNG fail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:17, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Habilitado[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.

Spanish article has a book listed that is just a "dictionary of Argentine films" and 2 "reviews" that have no citations, so I can't verify their authenticity. So, none of those satisfy WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another IMDb mirror article.. Kline | vroom vroom 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable film. Nika2020 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nominator has pointed out, reviews exist and are quoted in the Spanish language article here. How does the nominator know the dictionary is "just a 'dictionary of Argentine films'"? Do they have full access to the text? To repeat what I said in a similar AfD: quotes most likely came from and are cited in this book that is also mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia article, which I should be able to get via interlibrary loan. With the help of Google translate, I will see whether I can get more specific citations from the book; if not, I can look and see whether there are other reviews excerpted or what other information I can find out. But the sources exist and are apparently non-trivial and show some analysis. DiamondRemley39 (talk)
  • Delete verrifiability means we need to proactively prove notability. The keep vote is based on supposition without actual reliance in sources. We do not have actual well used sources that show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mae Bia[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since June 2017. PROD removed because "deprodding -- while article lacks sources, description if taken at face value would pass NFILM and so requires further investigation; sources are likely in Thai", but I found nothing of merit (even in the other language Wikipedia articles). Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Really nothing can be found that helps it to pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major film, controversial in its time and still notorious today for its depicted eroticism, enough for writers to re-visit almost twenty years later, like this Mthai article.[27] The article previously had a link to a review on the Movieseer website.[28] (I understand their reviewers are staff writers.) While most articles mentioning it today are in the context of the novel and its various adaptations,[29][30][31] online contemporaneous sources include this article from the Academic Services Journal of Prince of Songkla University.[32] News coverage of the day, which likely existed, will naturally no longer be available online, but should be easily found enough in library archives. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above which include reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul 012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:20, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adewole[edit]

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

Article created by someone with clear WP:COI, see Talk:Emmanuel Adewole. None of the alleged appearances, all unsourced, would qualify him for WP:NFOOTBALL. Despite what the article says, El Raja were not in the top tier of Egypt at the point of Adewole signing, as they were relegated the season before, see 2013–14 Egyptian Premier League. The only reliable database that this guy features on is Football Database, which has zero appearances recorded. The entire article is supported only by routine pieces like this, which do nothing for WP:GNG.

During my WP:BEFORE search, I found this Q&A and some passing mentions here, here and here. His career as an agent doesn't yet rise to passing GNG either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment “Wonder6490” wa s the username of the editor who created this page. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 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 Evi Edna Ogholi. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and Love (EP)[edit]

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

the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability rules , NO CHARTS , it also Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC there is No evidence of Notabiliy Samat lib (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 13:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 13:04, 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. Despite the extended back-and-forth on this page, I do not see where those advocating to keep this have demonstrated evidence of notability, either via WP:GNG or some other criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enorecords LLC[edit]

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

the topic of this article fails Wikipedia Notability Guldlines , the topic has no significant coverage on independent relieble sources , most of the sources are self publish , press released , No evidence of Notability, it Fails Wikipedia Notability WP:GNG. NCORP -- the only 2 Notable musicians that appears on this article was never signed to this record label before they came to limlight, fame, or success ,.. for example .. King_Wadada was signed to Miracle day music wish he won the kora award in 2010 -- Evi_Edna_Ogholi was signed to polydor records in late 1988 at her time of success ,... the topic of this article Fail wikipedia Notability , WP:GNG. NCORP -- there is No evidence of Notability regarding the topic of this article , NOthing to talk about ,; King_Wadada was signed to MIRACLE DAY MUSIC wish gave him Kora award in 2010 [1][2] , Evi_Edna_Ogholi was signed to POLYDOR RECORDS and PREMIER RECORDS in late 1988 wish brought her to fame through her song :: HAPPY BIRTHDAY in late 1990 [3] : NO evidence of Notability about the topic of this article , LUCKY DUBE was never signed to this unknown record label , after the Kora award 2010 , King_Wadada has is own personal record label AUSTINE PETERI RECORD [4] The topic of this article appears to be unknown record label with No evidence of Notability and the topic of this article and his author is bringing the question of UPE to the table , this Unknown Record label Enorecords LLC was never founded in 1960, there is No single musician. that was signed to this unknown record label Enorecords LLC in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 , even 2010, Enorecords LLC is a subject of WINNING JAH ; who seems to be the owner and founder of OBALAND MAGAZINE , Enorecords LLC , OBALAND AWARDS , Samat lib (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentThe topic of the article has significant coverages on reliable sources from national newspapers and televisions and they meets Wikipedia Notability Guldlines. They are pioneer record company in Nigeria since 1960, even before King Wadada was born in 1975. Before King Wadada, won Kora Award. The said Enorecords LLC, then Enorecords SNC, was the official arranger, distributor company, promotion logistics of the only popular song of King Wadada "Holy Holy" which brought nomination to King Wadada at Kora Award winnings. The song is legally sold and owned by Enorecords LLC, It was firstly and lastly distributed physically in 2009 until now. Enorecords LLC is both a record label, distribution label and artist management (a complete company) that has also brought success to previous popular music legends like Lucky Dube, Ebenezer Obey, Victor Uwaifo, name it. King Wadada spent only 4 months with Miracle day's music, he never released any song under miracle day's music. Only to Enorecords LLC. he is legally under Enorecords LLC. Miracle day's music is a tour and booking management company in Nigeria and they never signed notable artist or distributed songs or albums like Enorecords LLC. Conclusion, Enorecords LLC then Enorecords Snc is the official distributor of the only famous song and Album of King Wadada since 2009 until now.

https://www.discogs.com/King-Wadada-Omnipotent-God/release/10853617 Sources of the official song's album cover worldwide is here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HixdBMQwzk0 In case of Evi Edna Ogholi: She is officially signed to Enorecords LLC like King Wadada. the first EP released under the company was successful, selling two million copies and still ongoing.https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/12/18/enorecords-records-sales-of-over-2-million-copies-of-evi-edna-ogholi-cd-units/This Day https://leadership.ng/popular-italian-pianist-set-for-africa-tour/ on Leadership (newspaper) Album; https://music.apple.com/us/album/peace-and-love/1531240905?i=1531240906 Video clips signing of Evi (https://www.obalandmagazine.com/2020/07/29/breaking-news-africa-most-popular-birthday-song-is-set-for-remix-by-evi-edna-ogholi/ (Obaland Magazine) Sources i searched, about Enorecords llc's music legend and now President of the Enorecords LLC company Wining Jah is also very notable, his songs sold and charted. all his albums released by Enorecords llc.their songs had charted on Itunes https://www.naijapals.com/music/EndTime_Winning_Jah-75551 (reliable music website). He was described as the NigeriaKing of Reggae, Superstar in over 20 printed , and most inluential reggae musician from Nigeria. All sources from reliable Newspapers. Newspapers: https://punchng.com/reggae-is-not-dead-winning-jah/, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/12/winning-jah-west-africa-celebrates-nigerias-most-influential-reggae-superstar/,https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/248390-reggae-star-winning-jah-announces-release-new-album.html, One of the artists also leading a national campain: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/11/stop-arresting-marijuana-smokers-winning-jah-advices/, Can you imagine, one of the artistes also sold 650,000 units in 1990; https://tidal.com/browse/artist/7155782, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324349727_INFLUENCE_OF_AFRICAN_ORAL_TRADITION_IN_WINNING_JAHS_REGGAE_MUSIC, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8848309/, https://www.iriemag.com/respect-winning-jah/, https://books.google.it/books?id=yNcftAEACAAJ&dq=Winning+Jah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv4vGIpqfuAhUK_KQKHd0SB-QQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg User:NOTICE501 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - fails NCORP. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. The only source that even might be reliable, Obaland Magazine, is the subject of another draft by the sane author as this article, bringing the question of UPE to the table. 174.254.192.208 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

174.254.192.208 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It meets WP:GNG. 2 independent sources are listed. I was able to find more with a cursory google search. Needs to be rewriten with better sources. Redoryxx (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the topic of this article Fail wikipedia Notability , WP:GNG. NCORP -- there is No evidence of Notability regarding the topic of this article , NOthing to talk about ,; KING WADADA was signed to MIRACLE DAY MUSIC wish gave him Kora award in 2010 [5][6] , Evi EDNA OGHOLI was signed to POLYDOR RECORDS and PREMIER RECORDS in late 1988 wish brought her to fame through her song :: HAPPY BIRTHDAY [7] : NO evidence of Notability about the topic of this article , LUCKY DUBE was never signed to this unknown record label , after the Kora award 2010 , KING WADADA has is own personal record label AUSTINE PETERI RECORD [8] Samat lib (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Video source) https://www.facebook.com/officialenorecordsllc/videos/632975364264586, Congratulation comments on the successful sales by her ex husband Emma Ogosi and other folowers on Facebook (facebook page-source) https://www.facebook.com/officialenorecordsllc/photos/a.126457848889074/234698291398362, (Newspaper source) The sucess of her return, Evi Edna Ogholi's new suceess,:https://guardian.ng/news/winning-jah-celebrates-vulnerable-children-on-47th-birthday-success-of-ep/, (Newspapers) https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/12/18/enorecords-records-sales-of-over-2-million-copies-of-evi-edna-ogholi-cd-units/ King Wadada signed a record distribution and management deal with Enorecords LLC. The only popular song of King Wadada was released by Enorecords LLC, King Wadada doesn't have other booking site or artist roaster than Enorecords llc website online. (Sources) https://enorecordsllc.com/book-artists/, https://enorecordsllc.com/. King Wadada's debut and only popular album "Ominipotent God" containing the song he is known for "Holy Holy" was released, produced and arranged by Enorecords llc, then Enorecords SNC and Winning Jah, who is also the managing director of the record company. (Source musicbrainz) https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/e823910e-b39b-4332-b761-9cd6466c409e (Copyrite source) Below this video are the copyrite company informations of King Wadada.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ7P-FGk_yw Lucky Dube and his official Lucky Dube band signed management deal with Enorecords LLC even before he passed on (VIDEO SOURCE) https://www.facebook.com/101635651371294/videos/754631018366983 Evi Edna Ogholi is officially recently signed to Enorecords LLC and immediately archieved another global success. (Video source ) (https://www.facebook.com/officialenorecordsllc/videos/632975364264586) Evi Ogholi signing a record deal with Enorecords llc. (reliable national print newspapers Source) about Evi Edna Ogholi's and Enorecords llc: https://nigeriastandardnewspaper.com/ng/breaking-silence-after-25-years-on-world-music-stage-africas-queen-of-reggae-evi-edna-ogholi-ready-for-international-collaboration-with-akon-senegalese-born-americas-grammy-award-winner-eur/ Evi Edna Ogholi also said it again on BBC News Pidgin during her interview, that Enorecords LLC is her new record label : (Video source)https://www.facebook.com/bbcnewspidgin/videos/2829927173953395 Evi Edna Ogholi's newest EP on Amazon by Enorecords LLC:https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Evi-Edna-Ogholi/dp/B08HR6KNZY/ref=sr_1_127?dchild=1&keywords=Evi+Edna+Ogholi&qid=1611092607&s=dmusic&search-type=ss&sr=1-127 Recently on Leadership_(newspaper) Enorecords LLC was described as a Nigeria giant label (News source Newspaper) https://leadership.ng/popular-italian-pianist-set-for-africa-tour/ User:NOTICE501 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the topic of this article and his author is bringing the question of UPE to the table , Enorecords LLC was not founded in 1960, there was No single musician. that was signed to this unknown record label in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 ; even 2010, Enorecords LLC is a subject of WINNING JAH ; who seems to be the owner and founder of this very record label Samat lib (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Samat lib You previoiusly stated in your previous comments that Lucky Dube, Evi Edna Ogholi , King Wadada weren't signed to the label, i demonsterated contrary to your sources and now, you are sounding COI. You have debated without reliable sources, what makes you think the author is UPE? Probably you know the company owners? or you have griviances with them?. From the reliable Newspaper sources we all dicovered online, the article itself stated Enorecords LLC Was previously Enorecords SNC, founded by Winning Jah's parents and, they were known for distributing music veterans, then in their music store, from 60's-70's and they later faced struggles and went on break, in 2003 thereabout, Winning Jah himself took up the company and changed it to ENORECORDS llc. (source) https://www.discogs.com/label/1378098-Eno-Records-2. They started selling and distributing before Digital plaforms came to existence, as stated in all sources. It is my civil rights to defend the article in question as the writer, because i saw notability in it. If you are taking the article personal for reasons outside the sources we provided here, i don't have issues with that. But Wikipedia is met for education and historical purposes, i personally, is not connected in anyway with the subject, let's wait for our amiable admins to see our sources, let's not invent discussions withour links attached, thanks.User:NOTICE501 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment the basic Argument here is that Enorecords LLC released King_Wadada Album in 2017 , and Evi_Edna_Ogholi NEW Album in 2019 ; WISH fail to provide Evidence of Notability to Enorecords LLC ,... for example ... King_Wadada was signed to MIRACLE DAY MUSIC wish gave him Kora award in 2010 [9][10] , Evi_Edna_Ogholi was signed to POLYDOR RECORDS and PREMIER RECORDS in late 1988 wish brought her to fame through her song :: HAPPY BIRTHDAY in late 1990 [11] after the Kora award 2010 , King_Wadada has is own personal record label AUSTINE PETERI RECORD [12] LUCKY DUBE was never signed to this unknown record label , so there is NO evidence of Notability about the topic of this article , there is No significant coverege on independent relieble sources , Artist on the lebel are unknown with No Major charts positions . Enorecords LLC was not founded in 1960, there was No single musician. that was signed to this unknown record label in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 ; even 2010, Enorecords LLC is a subject of WINNING JAH ; who seems to be the owner and founder of OBALAND MAGAZINE , Enorecords LLC , OBALAND AWARDS ; Samat lib (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This is no longer a dark argument, kindly do your research properly. Firstly. King Wadada signed to Enorecords LLC i have showed you all sources both on reliable Newspapers and Allmusic.com,

Miracle day music was a tour management and event organiser, not a record label, like he did to late Majeck Fashek, Miracle day music doesn't have a single track or a music catlog anywhere online. King Wadada never released a song , EP, or Album under the unknown Miracle Day Music. Miracle day music did not make King Wadada win Kora Award in 2010, he was only a talent hunt. The song "Holy Holy" is owned by Enorecords LLC licenced to Enorecords even before the Kora Award winning. The album "Ominipotent God" was the debut and only album of King Wadada, produced and arranged under Enorecords LLC. The song was an extract from the released Album in 2017 by Enorecords LLC. The "Holy Holy" single which took King Wadada to Kora Award nomination was owned legally by Enorecords, contact soundexchange for a better understanding. An artist can be signed to 100 record labels, depends on what agreement. Enorecords LLC is the only record label King Wadada officially signed to. Here is Miracle Day music Official YouTube channel, no King Wadada materials like Holy Holy, Ominipotent God, No Booking website of King Wadada . [13].A record label deal varies from Booking, recording deal, promotional deal, distribution deal, and many more, Miracle Day music was only a tour management, Enorecords LLC was the only official record label he signed to, produced his songs and not the unknown Miracle Day Music.King Wadada has various names on each single online King Wadada Entertainment and many more, but released by other people. not a label, like show case singles. The sucess of King Wadada was extablished by Enorecords LLC. Evi Edna Ogholi had been famous before officially signing five years contract with Enorecords LLC in 2020, agreed, but that was 30 years ago she left Premiere records, she took 20 years break from the music scene and recently signed to Enorecords LLC with an upfront payment, read newspapers and watch her on BBC Pidgin, Splash Fm Ibadan [14]. After signing with Enorecords LLC, she released a sucessful EP selling 2 million units and received an endorsement as the Ambassador of Hope and Peace from Aid People Change Nigeria NGO. I'm a Nigerian and i watch and read newspapers daily, you stated on your Users page that you are a Moroccan and you see Nigerian national newspapers as not reliable? articles sources i used were newspaper prints not mere mentions, i think i watch this artistes on TV more than you. Enorecords LLC is a famous company, we grew up hearing and watching their artists on NTA TV. Lucky Dube sources have been posted in my previious links, my sources are reliable and i will like you to write about their current status, my links have spoken. You can write the article in your own way, i'm only writing as a volunteer on Wikipedia, like i wrote before, i also have my E books to read. User:NOTICE501 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi Samat lib I'm loving this debate, with a transparent fact check. Reading one of the sources you repeatedly provided from an online Encomium Magazine [15] stated in the article "Popular reggae artiste, King Wadada, who was shot into limelight by his hit single, "Holy Holy" . Means that Enorecords LLC, the producer, arranger, publisher company brought him to limelight.

[16] . Very clear, it wasn't because King Wadada signed to Miracle day music that gave him Kora Awards, as you stated your comments repeatedly. (2) No record label offers any minimum artist services professionally without the artiste previous agreement, MOU, contracts carrying his or her signatory, otherwise it could be defined as criminal activities. You and me don't know the exact date they had their confidential signatories and duration of services or what type of record deal, King Wadada signed to Enorecords to have all over his songs in their official platforms. Unknown miracle day music was never writen on his album covers or stated as Royalty company and copyrites. Why? if the only copyrite owner to the song which brought him to limelight was "Holy Holy" owned by Enorecords LLC under all copyrite database online and production credits on King Wadada's album covers, means he was signed to Enorecords llc. Kindly read about Record label services , this will help you understand that the Enorecords LLC is a notable company. I advice you to write the article better than how i did it, kindly don't delete without a reasonable motive or rather don't vandalise it. Let's also observe the blog links you sent as repeated sources, which stated;

"For some time you were off the music scene, what happened? "I was with a record label called Miracle Day Music. We had a three year contract. They couldn’t play their part, so I had to wait till the contract elapsed. Now, the contract has elapsed, so I can work with anybody. Besides, as a spiritual man, I was in the spirit, preparing myself and now I’m back with fresh material for the people." King Wadada's replied" this was in 2014 and Kora Award was in 2010, meaning Miracle day music wasn't the brain behind his success.[17]. You personally used it as a source and now you see the truth is here. Enorecords LLC certainly had recording , publishing, licensing, booking deals contract with him, probably the gigs and event deal was handled temporarily by the unknown Miracle Day Music, which never released a single music catlog on Allmusic.com, Discogs, Musicbrainz and others. We need reliable sources that describes Miracle day music as a record label in Nigeria and when was it founded? The song "Holy holy" was produced, arranged, recorded, licenced before King Wadada's performance at Kora Award by Enorecords LLC, the copyrite date wasn't disclosed. Only officially released annual songs could get nomination at Kora Awards or Grammy, see their websites.The song was printed on CD and in 2017 it went on digital download, that does not signified that the song was produced in 2017, from my research . Both of us are interested in Enorecords llc credits in King Wadada's past fame, this is our argument here and likely a question ? as Wikipedians. Answer is, Enorecords LLC produced the only hit song "Holy Holy" and the complete debut album which made him got nominated and also won Kora Award, he has won several awards after Kora Awards. which Miracle day music seems to be a temporary King Wadada's tour agent. Logically, a mucian, or artist don't get nominated without a previous released music, like no farmer works without a cutlass or a tractor. Let's be sincere here, We don't intend writing articles on Wikpedia from Nigeria, without reliable news sources. Holy holy Song could be physically distributed and registered before getting nominated, in 2010. From your sources, Enorecords llc finally published Digital platform version of his albums, the song has only one album cover from 2010 until date with Enorecords, writen clearly. Another good example was when Evi Edna Ogholi released he popular song "Happy Birthday" in 1988, it wasn't on digital plaforms, it was lately published online by her former record distributor premier records recently, thanks[18] User:NOTICE501 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete mostly unreliable sources and one press release. Artists on the label mostly unknown and no chart positions, other than one itunes, but that is not a major chart. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:NOTICE501 YOU VOTED TWICE ... Not allowed .. You have to change the vote to comment , please You cant vote twice Samat lib (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV; I don't see reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:NOTICE501 please try to understand the basic argument about the topic of this article, the only 2 Notable musicians that appears on this article was never signed to this record label before they came to limlight, fame, or success ,.. for example .. King_Wadada was signed to Miracle day music wish he won the kora award in 2010 -- Evi_Edna_Ogholi was signed to polydor records in late 1988 wish brought her to fame through her song :: HAPPY BIRTHDAY in late 1990 .... both of them was already Notable before they signed whatever contract with Enorecords LLC in 2017, and 2019, the orther Artist on the list are UNKONWN musician with No charts position , the sources on the article are unrelieble sources, press released, self publish sources like OBALAND MAGAZINE ; OBALAND AWARDS ; there are both subject of WINNING JAH who appears to be the founder and owner of both including Enorecords LLC that was never founded in 1960, the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability rules completly Samat lib (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Samat lib After reading your comment, i tried to go search founders of the Obaland Magazine , the Editors were listed and Winning Jah is not a Journalist but a Reggae Musician, i also searched online sources, One Mr Lucky Omosigho was cited as the news Editor and others[19] If Obaland Magazine which is also a national daily print newspaper covered the Enorecords llc, i thinks they are reliable sources. I haven't seen it anywhere online that Winning Jah was the founder of Obaland Awards or Obaland Magazine, kindly provide sources of informations. I disagaree if they never archieved further sucess after signing to Enorecords LLC. Because the news sources are not blogs but national newspapers that weren't press releases. thanks. User:NOTICE501 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:NOTICE501 i can see you edited the article of King_Wadada 4 days ago to suit your claim , please take note i personally created that article King_Wadada on Wikipedia , .. the first sources privided on the article says King_Wadada was signed to MIRACLE DAY MUSIC of wish he won the Kora Award in 2010 , Kindly read the first source provided on the article of King_Wadada and stop editing the article with false information , Enorecords LLC FAILS Wikipedia Notability Guildlines , there is NO Evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:NOTICE501 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


WP:GNG Kindly read Wikipedia guidelines before you comment at AfDs. You probably don't know how things work here. Do you? The fact that an article is probably poorly written is usually not a valid reason for deletion, especially if the subject of the article is notable like this Enorecords LLC. In addition, the DELETE nomination was tagged by an identified sockpuppet on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Tetuila. See links here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rymzo .Kindly stop misleading Wikipedia users please. Here is an extract of your negative activities and vandalism on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Samat_lib&dir=prev&target=Samat_lib User:NOTICE501 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you learn how to write internal links before telling someone that they should learn how things work on wikipedia. Also, you have no evidence that the ip is a sockpuppet of Samat lib. If you do, file a case at WP:SPI--Kieran207 talk 18:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus / redirect. There is no consensus about the filmmaker. There is consensus to not keep the film (split between delete and merge, which I implement as a redirect). This is mostly for lack of discussion about the reasons for the filmmaker's notability or lack thereof. Another discussion may therefore be needed about the filmmaker. Sandstein 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gionet[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and an article about his film, both referenced entirely to either glancing namechecks of his and/or the film's existence in sources that aren't about them, or primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. The notability claim here is that his film won or was nominated for short film awards at second-tier film festivals like Saguenay, Cinéfest Sudbury and Clermont-Ferrand -- but WP:NFILM does not extend an automatic notability freebie to just every single film award that exists, but instead requires major awards that get broad media coverage (e.g. Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards or top-tier film festivals like Cannes, Berlin or TIFF.) The question of whether an award makes its winners encyclopedically notable or not is determined by how wide and broad the award's media coverage is or isn't: awards that get widely reported as national or international news count as notability makers, while awards that get little or no attention outside their own local catchment area, so that you have to rely on either the local newspaper or the award's own self-published website about itself to source the claim, do not.
It would be different if he and the film could actually be shown to clear WP:GNG on their sourceability, but just winning minor awards at film festivals of only regional prominence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be sourced better than this. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in March if it makes the Canadian Screen Award for Best Live Action Short Drama and/or Prix Iris for Best Live Action Short Film shortlists, but Saguenay and Cinéfest aren't enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'd have to establish the filmmaker's notability (which nothing in the article does) in the first place before this would be the appropriate answer. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 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 12:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? We'd have to establish the filmmaker's notability, which nothing in his article does, in the first place before he could become keepable. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Bearcat is right (he usually is) - we can't bloody well close as a merge when the proposed merge target lacks notability entirely as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Patrol (band)[edit]

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

It's all written like an ad and I cannot find much notable coverage. Also, under 1000 results come up on Google for them -- unlikely there're many sources anyone's missing (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ski+Patrol%22+%22Ian+Lowery%22), DemonDays64 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is probably a copy of the bio at a fansite. Singer Ian Lowery has some media coverage and has been in other bands that got some notice, but Ski Patrol is only ever mentioned very briefly as one of his obscure early endeavors. It looks like they were once name-dropped by John Peel, but otherwise the band achieved little notice as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough coverage to justify an article. Ian Lowery is undoubtedly individually notable, and to delete an article on a band which was his focus for 3 or 4 years of his career between two other notable bands (The Wall and The Folk Devils) just seems daft. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of a number of references adding up to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reliable book coverage that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above suggested. Cuoxo (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable coverage in several books and other reliable sources, and clearly influential in their own scene of their time. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Atlantic306. JSFarman (talk) 21:57, 5 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chernigov Refinery[edit]

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

A mini refinery without a notability. Used mainly for promotion of the company which declared insolvency 6 years ago. Although I have cleaned it up and managed to find some references, I am not sure if it is enough for WP:NCCORP. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see this article being an advertisement if they've been out of business for 6 years. An advertisement for whomst? The sources seem fine to me and it's not saying anything ridiculous or promotional. jp×g 06:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 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 12:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Corn[edit]

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

This article definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails GNG, and per nom. I am not able to find new sources for this either, has been tagged for notability issues since 2018. Jooojay (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 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 keep. There is a clear consensus that, despite the outcome of the recent deletion discussion, the current article meets the threshold of notability and therefore should be kept (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sayman[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG. Radio Adept (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending WP:SALT. This article was nominated for deletion earlier this month, with an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety just a couple weeks after page deletion. This is a repeat of previous such behavior, when the article was deleted with overwhelming consensus in November 2018, then re-created in its entirety just 3 days later. Radio Adept (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Purplehippo458 (Talk to Purplehippo458) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: It looks very much like there has been WP:CANVASSing here, as some of the above "comments" are by editors who haven't edited in years but abruptly reappeared to come here to argue (but, oddly, not !vote) for keeping this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Purplehippo458 does mention above that he met Sayman once. More unusual is the nominator's first edit on Wikipedia ever was to send this article to AFD, and has made few other edits not related to trying to get this deleted. Special:Contributions/Radio_Adept. Dream Focus 00:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contributed for many years as an IP user. I made an account after attempting to follow WP:AFDHOWTO and being warned that unregistered users will get stuck midway through the process. Consider WP:CONTACTCU if you are unsure. Radio Adept (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This version of the article has significant changes from the previous one. Many of these additions, including section 'Revelations in "Always Day One: How the Tech Titans Plan to Stay on Top Forever"' with a quote about Sayman from Mark Zuckerberg, contribute to his notability by highlighting additional areas of interest by the public on his influence in the tech industry and on products, such as Instagram Stories where the previous versions of this article did not. Furthermore, additional edits that cite his awards, autobiography, and political activism provide deeper context to his influence in Latin American culture beyond the role he had at Facebook. Purplehippo458 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the recent additions from the past few hours. But I'm not sure how his quote being used in a book and him being a fan of Bernie Sanders confer any additional notability. Radio Adept (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regardless of whether or not canvassing or unknown users have been commenting ignores the points made by these users. There has been legitimate evidence presented of the merit of Sayman work from outside sources. Discounting these because you don't like the post history of the user is an illegitimate argument. The issue here isn't whether or not the users are good, it's about the sources. Sayman has 43 sources, most of which are significant news outlets, reporting significant and notable work he has done. The article should stay. AstronautElvis (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Twice already consensus has been to delete, and the current version is broadly similar to the previous revision (including a great deal of exactly identical content). It's clear there is a concerted effort by someone to force this article onto Wikipedia, which we should not bow to. We should not allow commercial interests to dictate content on Wikipedia, and at this point keeping the article would be doing exactly that. This should be speedied under G4. Waggie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making an accusation of commercial influence on this article is a very serious allegation to make. If there is solid evidence of commercial influence beyond the deletion history, this should be presented. Otherwise, this claim seems questionable, especially if considering the section on Lifestage. Lifestage was a failed project and a public embarrassment to Facebook and its engineers. A publicist would not put this information in an article. Therefore, this allegation seems unlikely, and asking the deletion process to be expedited under G4 would be unwise. AstronautElvis (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews, and articles clearly sourced from interviews (as all three above are) are not suitable for establishing notability. Per WP:PRIMARY Waggie (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Reliable sources giving coverage passes the general notability guidelines. Primary sources are only concerned with verification of information in the article itself, not in determining its notability. Dream Focus 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears interesting, notable, covered substantially e.g. in this Insider.Com article (cited in the article). I have no connection at all, found my way here by randomly checking at wp:DRN which mentioned this, after DRN came up on my watchlist. I regularly participate in AFDs especially about historic places. I will say, I am rather suspicious about 3rd or higher nominations of articles, which often seem, as appears to me in this case, to involve undue harshness/determination by repeated delete-voters to get their way. I can't see previous versions of article, but this seems topic and coverage seems substantial. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources. Certainly notable, since 88 people per day wanted to read about him last year. Why do we want to keep sourced info from readers who want to learn? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRN Volunteer Comment There has been WP Canvasing at the DRN page in favor of keeping the article. I have no opinion on keeping this article or not because I have not reviewed the source- but I thought it was fair to tell people this went on. 2 different editors opened 2 different DRN cases asking people to come here and vote keep. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That already mentioned. Where is the DRN page you speak of? You should link to it. I saw this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which I have on my watchlist, the (3rd nomination) part standing out. Dream Focus 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did link to the DRN in my comment.... but in case you missed it WP:DRNNightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested in my DRN case that additional editors who have experience in the Latin American context contribute if they can to this discussion for deletion, regardless of outcome (Never used DRN before, as I'm fairly inexperienced, and didn't know that adding to Latin American group was the way to go). Purplehippo458 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being inexperienced is one thing- but you do have some responsibility for learning and following the rules before you get too far into something. And if you had read the top of the DRN page before posting, you would have seen that your post did not belong on that board. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, you are certainly right. I was taken to this page, from a Google search, where it doesn't say much regarding that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request?withJS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.css. I thought requests for comment were different from what I was inquiring about, so I wasn't sure. I understand now and will be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplehippo458 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the post by Purplehippo458 was not appropriate for DRN, but I don't think it qualifies as WP:CANVASSING ("In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.") The wording was neutral, just looking for more editors. In fact, that's how I noticed this AfD. DRN would not be a good place to recruit editors of any one particular POV. Station1 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Protecting Sayman's page, which should clearly stay up, from frivolous deletion." That's an attempt to influence the outcome in a particular way, is it not? Radio Adept (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Station1 is referring to my DRN submission, you are quoting from another DRN I did not create. I think we're all on the same page that the other one you're quoting is unacceptable. I'm going to maintain focus on talking about the content of this article. Purplehippo458 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the posting at DRN, or at least whatever I happened to see, amounted to inappropriate CANVASSING. That guideline(?) mentions four factors in judging canvassing. What I saw might have been a bit "Biased" rather than "Neutral" in tone, but its scoped was "Limited" and it was "Nonpartisan" (not reaching a likely biased group) and it was "Open" (rather than secretive). I certainly don't want my view discarded simply because I mentioned seeing notice there. Also I admit myself being skeptical (i don't think that means "biased" in any bad way though) about 3rd and 4th and 5th deletion nominations, based on my legitimate experience with thousands of AFDs. Others reached at DRN would have different perspectives, no reason to assume it would be an inappropriate audience to receive notice of an AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, how about considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Classic Ski Descents of North America (2nd nomination)? (This is not "bad canvassing". I first "!voted" "Delete" there, but actually the fact of it being a 2nd nomination contributed to my deciding to dig in more, and I was converted to "Keep, but rework significantly" type view. Simply giving notice of an AFD is not a violation of wp:CANVASSING. Maybe it is not strategic to mention this AFD to a group including some maybe stuck the other way than I am, about other-than-first AFDs.) --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged G4 - Let's just go ahead and skip the canvassing, etc. issues as unnecessary. We just had an AfD about this, closed as delete. WP:DRV seems like the next stop, not immediate recreation and canvassing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. One of the SPAs removed the G4 tag. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite correctly. I would have removed it myself. G4 is for articles "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Speedy is inappropriate for articles currently at AfD where there is controversy. There's a chance this article may be kept, but if not, there's certainly no reason to hurry. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's changed? All I see that's new from the previous version are the section for the book quote, his new autobiography, his childhood photo, and him being a fan of Bernie Sanders. The rest had been present in the previous version and were recreated here. Radio Adept (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aside from all the things you point out, I see over a dozen refs added, as well as info about Roblox, the El Deber profile, and notability confirmed by Semana, Forbes and CNET. Station1 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tagged it not because I can see the original (I'm not an admin) but because it's not likely sufficiently different from the version that was just deleted by consensus at AfD to merit immediate recreation. I hoped CSD might save time/effort amid WP:MEAT drama. That said, I've elaborated on my reasoning below. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references in the article at this time are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your reasoning for notability? The majority of references are sourced from interviews with the subject himself, and I see this as WP:1E—all references about the subject establish relevance by explaining he was hired at Facebook at a young age. While commendable, that does not confer notability by itself—otherwise, Wikipedia would need an article for the youngest employee of every major company. Radio Adept (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: IMO this is a "process is important" example. When we have an afd closed with consensus to delete, I'm wary of legitimating what appears to be happening here: recruiting people to create or resurrect accounts to immediately recreate it and fight to keep it. I find it more troubling than getting an afd wrong. YMMV. [Update: Actually, I'm torn per my !vote below] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning by Cullen328. Tone of the prose could be adjusted to comply with WP:NPOV to make it less promotional and puffery-laden, but that is not a purview of AfD. The allegations of canvassing is troubling, but should be reviewed separately from the question about the article's notability, which is the current extent of sourcing available to us as editors. Precedent in prior deletion discussions have established that prior consensus plays no relevant influence in any subsequent AfD's (e.g. previously "Kept" articles have been deleted in subsequent AfD's and vice versa). Haleth (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn. As I wrote above, process is important. When an article is deleted, it's not ok to just have it recreated/defended by a bunch of new/resurrected accounts. That subverts our processes and if it works, we might as well hang it up because there are more people who want to influence Wikipedia than there are experienced volunteers interested in maintaining policy-based standards. On the other hand, [sigh] yeah it looks like participants at the last AfD simply got it wrong. This is an easy GNG pass. So I'm conflicted. At the intersection of "process is important" and "our process failed," maybe the best thing is to just be pragmatic: Keep [reluctantly] and move on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We judge article subjects for notability, not the articles themselves. It is clear that, whatever irregularities in the creation of this article may have occurred, this article documents a notable person and deleting it for form's sake helps nobody. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been added to the article in the form of pieces in such outlets as Forbes, Business Insider, People, etc. My limited Spanish suggests that there is a plethora of SIGCOV in media in that language, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 15:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Thailand[edit]

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

The article is full of unsourced entries. It did not meet WP:GNG. The mother, article, Miss Grand International was deleted several times. Here's the link for the AfD. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or selectively merge to Miss Grand, provided that the suggested target is restored following DRV. The subject (both the franchise and the national pageant) has been covered by multiple third-party sources, including this Positioning Magazine article about its origins, business platform, and format[33]; this Post Today article about the competition among domestic beauty pageants[34]; and this Isranews piece looking at the company's posted financials [35]. BBC Thai has mentioned it as part of a scoop on politics and beauty pageants[36], and a huge amount of Thai-language news reporting has been dedicated to each year's events and their plethora of controversies[37]. The GNG should be met. That said, we don't need separate articles about the franchise and each pageant. Individual articles about the pageants have tended to attract unencyclopedic fancruft, which is why I created the franchise overview article and suggest redirecting there, where it will be easier to trim down unwarranted additions. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:27, 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 05:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage meeting WP:GNG. That an article attracts unencyclopedic spam or vandalism is not a reason for deletion - if it were, we'd need to delete Kamala Harris and Donald Trump immediately. --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what do you think of the suggestion to redirect or selectively merge, given the overlap of the subject area? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is likely room to greatly expand Miss Grand International, since there are so many articles on it in different language Wikipedias. (52 of them! Lordy.) When that is done, there clearly won't be room for merging in Miss Grand Thailand, which is only one sub-contest, even if it is the largest sub-contest. (Something like the relationship between Miss USA and Miss Universe.) --GRuban (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ugh. The huge majority of those are clearly cross-language spam by the same user. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:14, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wible Orchard, California[edit]

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

A particularly egregious case of synthesis in the GNIS compilation, as, according to the maps which are the supposed source, "Wible" and "Wible Orchards" were at two different locations, and the current label is at neither of these. "Wible" is the rail location, and it's the usual passing siding and presumably station with no obvious town around it. At some point a complex of factory-ish buildings got erected a short ways to the NE, and on these maps, Wible goes away and the complex is labelled "Wible Orchards". I can't tell exactly when these buildings were replaced by huge grocery store now occupying the location. but at any rate the GNIS compilers decided to move the label another block north. So we have three separate spots: a NN rail spot, a literal fruit processing plant, and a location that nobody but GNIS apparently ever called "Wible" anything. I see no reason to keep this. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 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 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This appears to be a neighborhood in the city of Bakersfield, California. It has a lot of references online - especially in the local news and in on real estate related sites. Jooojay (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Following WP:NGEO, if place is not legally recognized (e.g. incorporated town), and does not have significant coverage in RS, then it is not notable enough for an article. LK (talk) 04:28, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iulian Ilie (footballer, born 2001)[edit]

Iulian Ilie (footballer, born 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a match between two teams in fully professional leagues; he is currently playing in the third tier of Romania so is not likely to play in such a game soon either. In terms of coverage, the best available seems to be a routine announcement, a name check and a transfer rumour. Does not look to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:26, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Agbozo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL; has not played in a game between two sides in fully professional leagues according to Playmaker Stats, Soccerway and GSA. The Timorese league is not fully professional so his 25 mins for them in the AFC Cup doesn't count towards NFOOTBALL. He also looks to fail WP:GNG as the only coverage I could find was this article, which says that he was the best goalkeeper in the Timorese second tier. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 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. Ultimately, the creator is no longer interested in it, some of the handful of "keep" !votes were concerned about what title it should have and how it is structured. If anyone would like the page userfied, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni[edit]

List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unnecessary list that seems to only seems to add the performances of certain pieces of Busoni's. There is no reason to have List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni and List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni along with this seemingly useless list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Re. "certain pieces" – incorrect: the list is not about "certain pieces" (which would be a subjective selection criterion), but about all compositions by Busoni that demonstrably (as in: verifiable to reliable sources) kept repertoire after the composer's death. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at your sources it seems a large bulk of them come from the site https://www.muziekweb.nl/. I doubt that this meets the standard for a reliable source without others to back it up. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muziekweb (Official website) is a reliable source, at least I see no reason to doubt that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it is necessarily not reliable, it's because of the nature of it. It's a library; one that simply tells you who has played a certain piece of music. It doesn't define that the pieces played are inherently notable or standard "repertoire". Why? I Ask (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No such claim has been made, nor is it needed. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this list, then called Ferruccio Busoni works because I found the complete works too loaded with detail. I left it like this in 2016 and forgot about it. I don't care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So is it right to say it's akin to a "Greatest Hits" page? Why? I Ask (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, because I don't even know what it is now. At the time, it was the beginning of making the works sortable, based on Max Reger works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 22 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 (☎) 23:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Why? I Ask: re. "... is it right to say it's akin to a "Greatest Hits" page?" – No. Most of Busoni's works fell into oblivion, and are only mentioned occasionally (e.g., in lists of works) without musicians ever preforming them, and even less audiences ever encountering them. Full lists of Busoni's compositions are invariably burdened with large amounts of such compositions which almost nobody even ever heard about. "Repertoire" is an encyclopedic category (no lack of page names carrying the descriptor, and it is used in article prose even more), so a list with all compositions by the composer that kept repertoire (as in: music a reader of the encyclopedia might actually encounter) definitely makes sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There was no need to use the unorthodox term "repertoire". The term usually applies to a composer-performer like Chopin, Liszt or Reger. The content should be merged to a standard list article. If there is a lead, the word "repertoire" might appear. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Smerus. Merging an unwieldy list into the good article on Busoni doesn't seem reasonable. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge If there is something to be gained from merging, I suppose, but otherwise delete. Such a list is extremely difficult to define coherently, and neither the current state, nor the former seem to do this clearly. Even if this was a list for Chopin, drawing a line at what pieces are considered "repertoire" for a specific composer is too vague and dubious without multiple sources clearly saying so (which I'm not sure we'd be able to find). Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – see also my comments above. The page is well within the conditions set out at Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats. As a list it is, for instance, also well within the requirements of WP:LISTCRITERIA. Selection criteria are clear: any composition by Busoni keeping repertoire after the composer's death is eligible for inclusion. Anyhow, the problem remains for the time being with List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni, List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni and Ferruccio Busoni discography which need a lot of work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • any composition by Busoni keeping repertoire after the composer's death is eligible for inclusion. – confused, what is meant by "keeping repertoire"? And how is a single recording by Groschopp (who doesn't even have a WP article) mean that the work is now considered "repertoire"—is this all it takes, one recording after the composer's death? If this is the case, then every piece by Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart etc. would be considered repertoire, which seems to defeat the purpose of the word. Aza24 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re. "keeping repertoire after the composer's death": this means, belonging to the repertoire of at least one performer after the lifetime of the composer (which is WP:V-wise a straightforward criterion). As said, a large portion of Busoni's compositions fall below that threshold (more than half of them if I'm correct), which makes the full lists so unwieldy, especially the ones now included in Wikipedia (they go in a lot of extraneous, often WP:V-failing, detail, largely immersed in unmanageable formatting).
      Re. "Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart etc.": lists of compositions by these composers typically include lost and/or doubtful compositions: the lost ones are never "repertoire" (duh), and the doubtful ones may, or may not, be "repertoire". Since for these composers, making a separate "repertoire pieces" list will usually not result in a significantly different list than the main list, I also don't think that would be a good idea for these composers. Other composers have only a small part of their output ever performed (e.g. Christoph Graupner comes to mind), so that a "repertoire pieces" list on a separate page would not make much sense either: a full list of the music by the composer that is still being performed can in such case easily be included in the composer's biographical article (see, e.g., Pietro Torri#Discography or Johann Ludwig Bach#Recordings). That being said, Busoni is indeed one of those (few?) composers where a full list of all compositions on a single separate page is unwieldy and/or impractical for encyclopedic purposes (including WP:PAGESIZE principles), and a list of the pieces still being performed (that is, which one could actually encounter in concert life and/or recordings) is too big to be just appended to another article.
      --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: let me give an example of a composition by Mozart, Laß immer in der Jugend Glanz, K. 440d, which BTW also appears in Schubert's catalogue of compositions (formerly as D 92), which is IMHO not a repertoire piece (could find no trace in reliable sources that it would ever have been performed during or after the composer's lifetime), and which also does not belong to either the "lost" or "doubtful" categories. As said, for Chopin, Beethoven and Mozart there are likely not a lot of such compositions, so a separate "repertoire pieces" list likely doesn't make much sense for these composers, just drawing the attention to the fact that in almost any case there is a difference between a list of all compositions by a composer, and a list of the same composer's repertoire pieces. Busoni's is only exceptional in that he had a broad output (over 400 works when including his adaptations), over half of which is apparently never performed again (only around 150 still are). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the criteria now, but am still left unconvinced. I can understand why something like Turandot Suite is considered repertoire (with 5 recordings), but not something like Tema con Variazioni with a single one. And if someone like Leslie Howard (musician) came to Busoni and recorded all of his piano works, they'd magically all be repertoire? It just doesn't make sense. I don't see why the "Performed by" column can't be inserted in his comp list. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aza24: "magically"? No, a pianist taking a piece in his repertoire is unrelated to magic. Re. "I don't see why the "Performed by" column can't be inserted in his comp list" – please proceed (offering solutions nobody is going to implement is just a diversion – illustrating this is a realistic solution can only be done by implementing it, so please proceed, I insist). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't have to ping me, I'm watching the page; Unfortunately, I still see no reason why pieces with one recording should be bundled in a list with pieces with ten recordings. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for the ping: I pinged you because I wanted to make sure you saw my request to please, please, implement what you propose (it has now become completely unclear to me what kind of a solution you suggest, see also below).
      Explaining (again) why a single recording vs no recording makes a bigger difference than one recording vs ten recordings: once a single performer, or ensemble, has taken a work on their repertoire list, this multiplies the chances of a reader of the Wikipedia encyclopedia having encountered that music by a manifold. Once it goes from a single recording to multiple recordings that difference isn't all that big (meaning: not much "more" readers of the encyclopedia have likely encountered the music). Illustrating: when Holger Groschopp is the first to save some Busoni piano pieces from oblivion, one gets, for example, an article in Gramophone, distribution of the recording via libraries such as Muziekweb, via Apple Music and other on-line outlets (not even mentioning bootlegs at YouTube and the like), etc. Anyhow, the chance someone actually encounters such until then virtually unknown piece expands vastly; if another performer records the same, that rarely adds much to that likelyhood of the piece being encountered somewhere. Such audience for a piece that has been added to a performer's repertoire, might be interested in getting to know more about the piece, and come to Wikipedia for that purpose. Now, the List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni/List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni pair is thoroughly impractical to find something (with its bulk of unperformed pieces, excess of remote info, unsortable split lists, etc.) and the discography list is not better (and runs behind miserably on recent recordings, which nobody adds to the page because of its impractical organisation). That's why the repertoire pieces list makes sense, until the other lists are thoroughly reformed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re. "merge" suggestion – could it be indicated *to where* this is supposedly to be merged? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Aza24's suggestion - add a column to the existing listing with recordings. If Francis Schonken can't be bothered to do it, why should he expect or demand anyone else to?--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??? Not what Aza24 suggested: Aza24 suggested to add to the "comp" list (which is not the recordings list); the recordings list, that is Ferruccio Busoni discography, is not organised in columns, so "adding" a column to it makes no sense. Did you never actually look at these pages? That is, after I tried a few times to draw attention to the fact how *messy* they are? But really, if you think it is not only possible, but an improvement to slap a "column" in the Busoni discography mess, please proceed, and slap the column in, so that your co-editors can assess the result. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • to the existing listing with recordings — "with recordings" not "to recordings", Smerus can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he's referring to the comp list as the existing listing, and suggesting we add the column with recordings to it, which is what I was saying. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aza24, what you suggest has now become completely enigmatic to me: where do you propose to add what? I suggested you do that yourself, because explaining what you mean appears to be going nowhere, and as far as I can tell the approach you propose is completely impractical (unless, of course I can see it isn't after you've implemented it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francis Schonken has taken the opportunity to add this entire list to the main Ferrucio Busoni article without discussion, (which I have now reverted). This seriously distorts a GA article, with a listing which is clearly non-consensual, and is twice as long as the orginal article. He justified this by suggesting, inaccurately, that the proposal to merge it to the article had been made in this discussion. Imo (for what it is worth) such an action is contravention of standard WP manners and courtesy.--Smerus (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re. "... suggesting, inaccurately ..." – I made no such inaccurate suggestion. Please don't throw nonsense at this, Tx. But anyhow, QED, this best remains on a separate page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Francis Schonken, your edit at Ferruccio Busoni clearly states "Per suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni, i.e., as an alternative to the actual suggestion". Awaiting your apology, --Smerus (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No such apology is needed (my edit summary was extremely accurate), awaiting your apology for the false accusation, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I also disagree with merging this complex list into the composer's article, - it's undue weight there, a bad alternative. Hard to say what it is stand-alone. I see around 5 views per day, so it seems to mean something to a few readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly with a different page name. This is a very valuable resource. WP has lists of video games and rock musicians' shoes. Why not this? SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Because nearly all of the information besides certain performers can be found on the multiple other lists regarding this composer. Your reasoning that WP has "lists of video games and rock musicians' shoes" isn't a very compelling argument. Lists of top-selling video games or games published by 'X' company are valuable and popular resources, for example. This is really not (As seen by the sub-100 view count that it typically gets per month). Also, may I ask about the rock musicians' shoe page? Can you link that? That sounds rather interesting. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I favor the most comprehensive list of his works, and in a sortable format, with as many columns as we have available data. Your argument about popularity is rejected out of hand. That's not what encyclopedias are about. And no paper is wasted on a seldom-read page here. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the reason I opened this discussion. More comprehensive lists exist (see Ferruccio Busoni discography, List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni, and List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni). This repertoire page exists for no other reason than to say "well these are works that got played once". It's not useful in any manner and the information could be merged to the other pages. (Francis' argument about the composition/adaptation pages being too big doesn't have much weight looking at other similar lists for other composers; the pages only have around 200 compositions or so.) I do appreciate Francis' efforts to add IMSLP links and I hope that he or some editor can do the same for the other pages. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valuable to... the 5 people that visited on 6/20/2020 or the (highest of the year) 13 people on 5/19/2020? Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nominator. Basically, all the information in this article is already presented in others and more effectively at that. This just reads like a lot of confused clutter. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Rozani[edit]

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

No indication of passing GNG or NBIO. All sources used in the article are glorified press releases or interviews or not about him at all. The tone in some parts of the article is also blatantly promotional. Article history reveals that a SPA hijacked a disambiguation page and then renamed it. M4DU7 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:16, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardings Coaches[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I cannot find any evidence this is notable enough for an article. It is surprising that it has been an article since 2006, yet over the last 5 years, the highest daily page views was 12, with an average of 1. Searching proves the company exists, but nothing noteworthy about it. Even a recent news article on the company couldn't write anything particularly interesting. Bungle (talk • contribs) 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. North America1000 09:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Poker[edit]

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

A run of the mill poker website. Not one of the references used in the article covers the website significantly and independently. Very likely to be a case of COI editing. M4DU7 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contains tons of sources but non appears independent coverage. Luciapop (talk) 07:46, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Etshalom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - The only reliable independent sources were My Jewish Learning, YU Torah, and Jewish Holidays, and those weren't actually super relevant to his career. The other sources pulled from were a school newspaper known as the Shalhevet Boiling Point, several about the author sections from Urim Publications, the actual amazon page of a book, and other sources that don't prove notability. Further searches find no other possible sources that mention him in any meaningful way. I chose not to notify the creator of the article of this discussion, not only because the creator has a clear conflict of interest, and not only because they pushed this article through after it was rejected from AfC for complete plagiarism of a non-notable and unreliable source, but because they have been blocked for sockpuppetry at two proposed speedy deletions of this article. I don't see reason to keep this article. I could be wrong, and that Yitzchak Etshalom is actually notable and these sources barely pass him through GNG. It's close. But I personally believe this article should be deleted - there's an argument to be made that Rabbi Etshalom is accomplished and should be notable, but I don't believe he is right now. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post was kind of long, and I don't want to fearmonger, but we should probably keep watch for further sockpuppetry if the creator finds out. The past two usernames had to do with jewish culture and being a bookworm, so i don't know I guess keep a look out? Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't about the author sections on the websites of publishers he signed with count as a clearly paid source, or at least a compromised one? Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment from Bearian (talk · contribs), Adamant1 (talk · contribs), and buidhe (talk · contribs) - thoughts on this discussion, and also a comment on possible sockpuppetry from the two users below? Take a look at the page history, the contested speedy deletions, the grammar usage I want to know your thoughts. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited, read the article and I do believe that Yitzchak Etshalom is a notable person. I would like to see more sources but It should not be deleted. The newspaper article does show notability in my opinion. Rosh Beit Midrash is big position in what I've researched. The sources are fine, just more are needed. They were not fine when they were from amazon.com but those were removed. I believe this article subject is noteworthy and should not be deleted. From the sources one can clearly see that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable within the Jewish community of Los Angeles I think this article needs a few better sources. Overall I am contesting this deletion I think it should be closed and better sources should be added. (judged by nominator as Keep)
@Sycolo: Sources from Urim Publications are what's known as "paid sources" - where the institution has something to gain from giving an unreliable description. I'm not alleging that Urim Publications has done that, but as a general policy, Wikipedia doesn't rely on publisher "about the author" sections as a reliable source (see WP:SPONSORED). As for the newspaper, the Shalhevet Boiling Point is a school newspaper, and while school newspapers can be used to provide some basic background information, they do not establish notability on their own. Also, I'm curious - why would you revert the SineBot signing your post? It seems strange given that I can see who wrote this anyway. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I am new to wikipedia, I am just trying to contribute and give back to what Ive benefited for years off of. Thank you for explaining that. I would agree then in that case that those are unreliable sources and should be removed. I think that school newspaper is an overused for a school newspaper considering what you told me. Also, I do not know how these discussions work and when to sigh or not. Again I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me and help me use wikipedia more correctlySycolo (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Sign all your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. My problem is, if there's nothing left after removing those sources, which is essentially correct, then the article is inherently non-notable. Should Yitzchak Etshalom have greater press coverage? In my opinion, yeah, absolutely. Does he right now? No, not enough to warrant an article here. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable because of the multiple sources written on him. My main issue with this article is that some of the sources may be compromised so I would like new sources but he is notable and I am contesting this deletion just clean up the self published ones and add some non compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.104.175 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (judged by nominator as Keep)[reply]
@67.49.104.175: To establish notability per the general notability guidelines, there needs to be multiple independent, reliable, significant sources providing in-depth coverage about the subject. Urim Publications is a sponsored source, making it unreliable, and the Shalhevet Boiling point is a school newspaper, meaning it could be useful but it cannot establish notability. The rest of the sources similarly do not establish notability. In the absence of other sources, which are on you to provide because I could find none, this article is non-notable.Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Teen Republicans[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, sourced mainly to its own defunct website and some local news blurbs: fails WP:NORG. An affiliate of Georgia Republican Party; could be redirected there. Reywas92Talk 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with the nom, the only sources I could find were primary sources, a couple of blogs and a spattering of tiny local newspapers. As a result, this organisation fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost no coverage, clear GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 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 redirect to List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Disaster[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR. An unreleased song that has not been commercially available. Has not even charted. Most of the article reads like it fits better in a Lana Del Rey-specific fan wiki. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 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 List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killer (song)[edit]

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

For an unreleased song, this reads like original research. No indication of notability (WP:NSONGS). Plus, since this is "unreleased", does it make it factual that it is a recorded song that has been commercially released? I doubt that the song is of encyclopedic value.+ HĐ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:33, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I'm going with "soft delete" because although three editors have participated, none of them suggesting keeping the article, there's also not a general air of "yes, we should unquestionably delete this" from two of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penteo[edit]

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

A single-sentence stub tagged for notability since...deep breath...August 2006. WP:BEFORE was inconclusive, which is why I'm taking it here rather than prodding -- it doesn't seem impossible there might be an article buried in here -- but man, is that a bad look, and the 'inconclusive' in question is leaning rather 'delete with prejudice'. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SIGCOV. I found zero newspaper articles or book references. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The version that was live prior to this edit in January 2021 was a lot more than a single-sentence stub, but did lack references and contain some promotional claims. The notability tag that was added under that edit appears to have been mistakenly backdated to August 2006, the date when the article was originally created? AllyD (talk) 14:55, 5 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 Go South Coast. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damory Coaches[edit]

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

Can’t find any significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:54, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bygone Buses[edit]

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

Can’t find any significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Impossible to search on as name just brings up loads of books about buses of yesteryear. Maybe some history that maybe notable as an new operator back in dereg days and running vintage buses as they were then, but without any new refs I lean to delete. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:54, 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New Beginning in Hiroshima (2021)[edit]

The New Beginning in Hiroshima (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising or publicity. Also wp:crystal. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A bit of a reach by the nominator. Does not fall under wp:crystal, the event has been confirmed by the promotion to take place and matches already confirmed. The article follows the manual of style and is consistent with articles about upcoming wrestling event. The article might need some secondary sources which can easily by added, but otherwise I don't see how it's advertising. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep no reason for deletion. The event has been confirmed by the company and matches are announced. A future event is not promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gina D's Kids Club[edit]

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

Has only one review, and the other two potential sources barely talk about it specifically. Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the CommonSenseMedia review in the article there is also This AV Club article that has a couple of paragraphs about it including some criticism so it is independent coverage. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 17:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you didn’t provide a reason why. Dronebogus (talk) 15:33, 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. North America1000 06:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Neeman[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The nomination is extremely faulty because it is based around the wrong notability criterion; this article should be evaluated in terms of WP:PROF, which does not consider SIGCOV, and not in terms of WP:GNG, which does. Pure mathematics is an area that, despite being journal-focused rather than book focused, doesn't work well with WP:PROF#C1-based evaluation based on citation counts, because the citation counts are small and don't really concentrate on the works the mathematicians think are most important — see for instance https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202101/rnoti-p114.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05389 for some bibliometric analysis in this area. Neeman does have one paper with over 100 citations, but it appears that this paper obtained its high citations by shading over into computer science (a much higher citation field) rather than by being any way central or important to Neeman's main research, so it would be wrong to base notability on it and even more wrong to judge his other papers by their lower citations than it. His book has three signed and published reviews, but that does not really count for much because two are in MR and zbl, for which reviews of pure math publications are expected and routine. I think the Hausdorff Medal is more determinative in this case, enough for #C2, and that's the basis for my weak keep opinion. His full professor rank at UCLA, while not by itself sufficient for any WP:PROF criterion, also suggests that his research is well respected within mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC)Comment. Among set theorists, the Hausdorff Medal is a pretty big deal. This is also a very low citation field--Shelah is like the next Erdős and his h-index is only 38 (Paul Erdős himself is only 57!). Donald A. Martin is an emeritus professor in math and philosophy at UCLA with only a 12. Among Neeman's coauthors (even including people who have CS appointments that boost citations) he's around the median for citing documents (N: 248, med: 168, avg: 557), total pubs (N: 37, med: 33, avg: 73), and h-index (N: 9, med: 9, avg: 10). BUT, most math papers are monographs, so collaborations are often between well-established researchers. So he probably weakly meets PROFC1. JoelleJay (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see David Eppstein posted basically the same conclusion a bit earlier while I was lollygagging around Scopus; I'll upgrade my !vote to weak keep as well. JoelleJay (talk) 06:42, 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. Article clearly needs work, but there is rough agreement that the subject satisfies our notability criteria. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Walker[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The references used in the article are all primary. I can't find any significant independent coverage online, or any other evidence of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-ish keep. Plenty of reviews in PW and Kirkus: [38], [39], and some coverage of her personally at ProQuest 241247958 and [40]. But PW and Kirkus review just about anything, hence the "weak". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: The Guardian piece is interesting; it's definitely more than a passing mention, but I doubt whether it counts as significant coverage of the author. I can't access the ProQuest article, although I can see that it's from The Courier-Journal. Could you maybe quote or describe the relevant passage? Lennart97 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier-Journal piece is a profile of Walker and another romance writer; it mostly describes her daily life. Relevant passages include: "Walker will see her 21st romantica book released this month, and she's found her newfound success blissfully overwhelming. The former nurse was able to quit her job to write full time and she fields fan letters and e-mails on a regular basis. Her husband is still in awe." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's significant coverage of her and her work in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors (it gives an overview of her career up until 2016). She's had 12 reviews in Publishers Weekly. (Click "More By and About This Author") She's been reviewed at least once by Booklist for Headed for Trouble [41]. The Gale source also mentions other reviews she's received (like from RT Book Reviews, which probably couldn't be easily accessed now). I personally think she has enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, although I can see why this was nominated - the article was filled with non-independent sources (and the primary/non-independent sources should still probably be weeded out, although that's separate from the notability issue). - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing showing Walker is at all notable. If kept we really, really, really need to trim down the size of the article. We do not need a table listing the editors for the works for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my experience, Kirkus and PW review few romance writers. She easily meets the notability criteria for authors. pburka (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:NAUTHOR point 3, and that Kirkus has reviewed more than one of her books in her field of writing is unusual. Article needs work though.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:01, 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 (Beyoncé Pulse to Beyoncé#Endorsements and partnerships and Heat Rush to Heat (perfume)#Heat Rush). There is consensus these topics lack sufficient sourcing to be independently notable. I chose these redirect targets because they have existing discussion of the topics while the manufacturer's article has none. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Pulse[edit]

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

I am nominating this lot of articles for deletion because it reads like WP:PROMOTION. The description of the perfume is derived from primary sources and lack third-party coverage. The promotion part is straight-up news report and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which Wikipedia is not. The only notable thing is that it was endorsed by Beyonce. HĐ (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:02, 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. North America1000 06:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Goldsmith[edit]

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

What was notable was the political ad she was featured in. Not her, individually. I'd argue the ad could possibly be notable enough to be spun-off from 2006 United States Senate election in Tennessee (though, this may not be neccessary), but she, herself, is not notable enough to warrant an article. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two job offers after the commercial, yet we have nothing past 2008 for her. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of the BLP1E rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E and the article reads like WP:PROMO. IMDB also doesn't suggest that she has any significant roles, so doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7. Already deleted by Fastily. StarM 02:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fanis Shaikhutdinov[edit]

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

The crime he committed gained some brief coverage when the trial happened, but there is no evidence in the article or to be added that Fanis Shaikhutdinov was otherwise notable. BLP1E cases can be controversial, so here rather than PROD. StarM 01:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just applied a {{g7}}. I am the sole author of this article's intellectual content, which I think measured up to the inclusion standards of 2007, when I last looked at it, but doesn't measure up to today's standard. Geo Swan (talk) 02:01, 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 arguments for meeting WP:GNG trump the other specific guidelines. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogananda Pittman[edit]

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

Only notable for being promoted to acting chief after the storming of the Capitol. I did find a few sources about her prior to 2021, but they were not substantial. I also don't believe that Chief of the Capitol Police is an inherently notable position. WP:BLP1E Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG as the first woman and African-American chief of the United States Capitol Police. KidAd talk 01:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prior to Steven Sund, I can't seem to find any other Capitol police chiefs to have articles of their own. No reason to keep her, especially considering the fact that she is an acting chief. Being the first [Insert race/ethnicity/gender here] is a poor ground for establishing notability here.--Kieran207 talk 02:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieran207:, as an aside, do you consider Steven Sund notable? Natg 19 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19:, That's a tough one, He might barely pass in my book. However, he has almost twice as much sourcing as Pittman. And also, Sund's coverage within those sources are more direct than in Pittman's case.--Kieran207 talk 02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieran207: Does not notability derive from ongoing coverage in reliable sources? Since when did notability depend upon holding a notable position? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She fulfills GNG and therefore is notable. (And for what it's worth, I think she should be notable as well, the Capitol riot was an extremely significant event, and replacing Sund with a black women in the context of that event is even more important than her being just the first black women in the post.) WestCD (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. While it has been suggested that WP:BLP1E applies, there has been continuting coverage of her actions as Acting Chief. For example on 18 Jan by CNBC,[20] on 19 Jan by Politico,[21] on 22 Jan by wtopnews,[22] on 26 Jan by People and CNN,[23][24] and on 29 Jan by The Week.[25] See: Wikipedia:What is one event. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but most of those articles are about things she has said not things she has necessarily done. It's different when most of her coverage is just comments she has made instead of actions as chief.--Kieran207 talk 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieran207: The 18 Jan CNBC article is about the action of ordering the shutdown of the Capitol complex.[20]. The 19 Jan Politico article includes more than passing reference to Pittman's career, the actions she has taken since becoming Acting Chief and the challenges she faces.[21]. The 26 Jan People and CNN articles are about the action of appearing before a congressional hearing with the House Appropriations Committee.[23][24] The People article also covers actions she took during the Capitol Riot,[23] which are separate from the event of her being appointed as a result of the Capitol Riot. By my count 4 of the 6 articles quoted are about actions Pittman has taken, not just what she has said. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC) updated Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reason to keep: WP:BLP1E requires 3 conditions to be met (1. reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 3. the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - see WP:BLP1E for full wording). 1 is not met, see above, so in consequence 2 is not met. 3 is not met because if the event is the Capitol Riot and its aftermath, then the event is significant, or if the event is Pittman's appointment then Pittman's role in that event is central, without her the event could not have occured which to my way of thinking is way above the threshold of substatnital, and in addition the appointment was well documented. Any one of the conditions not being met is sufficient for WP:BLP1E not to apply, but all three? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me, only the Politico article is a valuable RS about her. The Jan 18 article just mentions her as a passing reference, and the other articles mention her only in relation to the Capitol Riot, as they are congressional hearings or interviews about what happened during or near the time of the Riot. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 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 Texas v. Pennsylvania. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Though this Supreme Court case was notable, and many of the participants are notable individuals, this list of participants is not a notable topic, as the Supreme Court case was thrown out, and there have not been any consequences for these House members. The participants are mentioned in passing in Texas_v._Pennsylvania#Participants, and full lists can be found in the citations.

The topic of listing out these participants was discussed in Talk:Texas_v._Pennsylvania/Archive_1#Lists_of_"participants", but was never resolved, so I am bringing this page to AfD for a wider discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@AleatoryPonderings, Reywas92, Masem, Feoffer, DolyaIskrina, Soibangla, Love of Corey, Goethean, and Herbfur: (users involved in the previous discussion)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As I said before, this is important information that absolutely belongs at Texas v. Pennsylvania, not chopped off into another article that gets 2% of the main article's pageviews. Might as well delete it altogether if it's split to an unread page. The signatories and lawsuit plaintiffs were significantly covered in national and regional news through this process, much more than those of other amicus briefs, and we should make this clear on the main article. No part of this is indiscriminate or undue, all being prominent politicians whose participation here received clear and substantial coverage as context to the lawsuit. Reywas92Talk 01:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point, clearly nothing appears to be set to happen to this specific list of people (it would be those that subsequently voted on Jan 6 to try to challenge the results, which includes many of these people, but even *those* people are unlikely to see anything given the way the political winds have shifted.) We have have reference links that provide all these to those that are curious but the full list is overkill for Wikipedia's coverage of a case that didn't even get heard at SCOTUS. This is very much failing WP:NOT#NEWS at this point. --Masem (t) 01:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: FWIW, I just added "Amicus brief filed by 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives"[42] soibangla (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Notable subject, but not worthy of a standalone article. No reason to have a seperate article about a topic already covered elsewhere.--Kieran207 talk 02:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Neutralitytalk 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Not notable on its own but has useful information. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Failure is not a criterion of notability. Plenty of failed battles, putsches and coups are of historic significance. Further, the argument that the suit was frivolous, baseless and of no legal merit makes these signatories more, not less, noteworthy. These are elected legislators and yet they signed on to the thing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't notable at all and very few people will want or need this information in the future, especially after the attack on January 6th. It simply fails WP:NOT#NEWS, so I don't think it merits inclusion, let alone a standalone article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lists of supporting and opposing state attorneys general into Texas v. Pennsylvania. The members of Congress are not really worth mentioning. BD2412 T 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the case, as this is far too much detail, and much if it not individually sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Tessaracter (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is nothing more than a character assassination hit-piece, given it only provides specific names. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be fine with a redirect too but outright deletion is not warranted. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania, the full list of parties is always appropriate to list in a case article, even if only in a footnote (the infobox usually can only fit in an "et al" when there are as many as here). NOTNEWS has no bearing here because this information will always be a part of that notable case, if they formally signed on then they are parties (however nominatively) so we're not just talking about who voiced support. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not all persons on that pages are parties to the case. Most are co-signers of amicus briefs, which we normally do not document in full. --Masem (t) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of political parties in Nepal. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Panchayat Parishad[edit]

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

No indication of significance. No sourcing since it was created in 2004. On a search, I found one government report that indicates it existed, but nothing that indicates it was ever successful, or even notable for being unsuccessful. Fails WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 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. North America1000 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoftWood[edit]

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

Lacks proper sourcing, fails GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NORG. As there isn't even a claim of notability, I've added Template:Db-A7. G11 probably also applies. 174.254.192.80 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined the A7; often better with longstanding articles to allow the deletion discussion to play out. Also I note no-one bothered to notify the creator, Polluks, who is still active. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not a company that appears to be notable, particularly prior to becoming defunct. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of its historical software. -- Polluks ★ 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because its software is historical, it doesn't make a company any more notable. (see WP:IHN) If there are sources about the software itself then the software is notable, and not a company. There need to be independent sources about the company itself.Unspectrogram (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not nearly enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 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.
  1. ^ https://encomium.ng/im-not-a-gospel-artisteim-a-spiritual-musician-king-wadada/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ7P-FGk_yw - kora award 2010
  3. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Evi-Edna-Ogholi/dp/B001S4U96M
  4. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/King-Wadada/dp/B07RZ5DK8S
  5. ^ https://encomium.ng/im-not-a-gospel-artisteim-a-spiritual-musician-king-wadada/
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ7P-FGk_yw - kora award 2010
  7. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Evi-Edna-Ogholi/dp/B001S4U96M
  8. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/King-Wadada/dp/B07RZ5DK8S
  9. ^ https://encomium.ng/im-not-a-gospel-artisteim-a-spiritual-musician-king-wadada/
  10. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ7P-FGk_yw - kora award 2010
  11. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Evi-Edna-Ogholi/dp/B001S4U96M
  12. ^ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/King-Wadada/dp/B07RZ5DK8S
  13. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLnHsh1G4GGf71-2OrnwxBw
  14. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2APCFO5zulo
  15. ^ https://encomium.ng/im-not-a-gospel-artisteim-a-spiritual-musician-king-wadada/
  16. ^ https://www.discogs.com/it/King-Wadada-Omnipotent-God/release/10853617
  17. ^ https://encomium.ng/im-not-a-gospel-artisteim-a-spiritual-musician-king-wadada/
  18. ^ https://www.allmusic.com/album/omnipotent-god-mw0003114035
  19. ^ https://www.obalandmagazine.com/about/
  20. ^ a b Shabad, Rebecca (2021-01-18). "'Small fire' prompts brief shutdown of Capitol, evacuation of inauguration rehearsal participants". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Yogananda Pittman, acting chief of Capitol Police, acted out of "an abundance of caution following an external security threat under the bridge on I-295 at First and F Streets," and ordered a shutdown of the Capitol complex, according to a statement from Capitol Police.
  21. ^ a b King, Maya (2021-01-19). "The acting Capitol Police chief's tough task". Politico. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  22. ^ Vika, Will (2021-01-22). "Capitol Police acting chief: We didn't tell National Guard to leave Capitol facilities". wtopnews. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  23. ^ a b c Campione, Katie (2021-01-26). "U.S. Capitol Police Chief Apologizes for Department Response to Riots: 'We Will Do Better'". People. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  24. ^ a b Grayer, Annie; Duster, Chandelis (2021-01-26). "Acting Capitol Police chief tells Congress the department 'failed' during riot". CNN. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  25. ^ Maass, Harold (2021-01-29). "10 things you need to know today: January 29, 2021". The Week. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman on Thursday said that "permanent fencing" is needed at the Capitol to prevent a repeat of the recent deadly riot ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_30&oldid=1005832407"