Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 03	January 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Bianconi–Barabási model. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)[edit]

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

I believe this page should be deleted on the following grounds: 1. Overly narrow overlap of three articles (Bianconi–Barabási model, Bose-Einstein condensation and Fitness model (network theory)). 2. Overly technical - hard to understand even for people with familiarity with the subject. 3. Notability - subject is very niche even within network science. 4. Largely already covered by the articles listed in point 1. Fractalfalcon (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this article was previously up for deletion in 2011 but was deemed a keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach. However, since the original discussion the Bianconi–Barabási model page was added covering largely the same material. In my view, the new article covers most of the material in this article and is better written than the current article. --Fractalfalcon (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Bianconi–Barabási model - although I very helpfully won't opine in which direction; but there is a fair amount of overlap, and having two extensive articles that split the difference seems unnecessary. - I don't agree that there are any notability concerns. The titular paper has 889 cites, many of which consist of not insubstantial treatments in heavy hitters (10k+ cites) such as [1] and [2]. That's definitely good enough for us. And as for being overly technical, well, by that measure we could junk all of WP's modeling theory coverage. There's actually more legible prose in here than in most articles of that type. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhhh.... merge with Bianconi–Barabási model. It makes sense to explain a phenomenon exhibited by a model in the article on that model. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I guess in hindsight I'm convinced a straight deletion is overkill. Definitely this merged into Bianconi–Barabási_model though. Would be unusual to describe the model in the page for the phenomena. I personally would also advocate deleting Bianconi–Barabási_model#History which I think verges on self promotion and is not well sourced. Fractalfalcon (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; ... I find the information in this article on condensation much clearer than the merge article, although there is some overlap. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longkam[edit]

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

Under WP:NEXIST, I don't believe this article satisfies notability requirements; the only sources I've been able to find are either maps or weather information, which combined do not qualify as "significant coverage". Halfadaniel (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally populated settlements have been considered de facto notable, because one core part of Wikipedia's remit is to function as a gazetteer. Googling for sources where the language uses a non-Roman script doesn't always work well. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NGEO "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." I believe this criteria is met, and do no believe any one is questioning that this is a "Populated, legally recognized place" Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Haim[edit]

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

I have improved the article from being an unsourced stub to now a stub with two sources. I still don't think that there is enough there to show a passing of WP:GNG especially considering the fact that Haim does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. We have a profile page on the website of the football governing body. The same source then reports on her winning an award while playing in the local leagues. A Proquest search results in an article reporting on the same thing. This is not the level of notability required to pass GNG, in my opinion. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG, it is far past time we removed articles that do not meet this bare minimum requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassivity Music[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable company. Only 6 hits on Google news, all of them 1 sentence mentions. Page has been tagged with 4 notices expressing the lack of notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable record label. If someone wants a project that will take a long time, just start going through articles on record labels and try to either find enough sourcing to justify keeping them or nominate them for deletion. This is one of the cases where we have the largest grouping of undersourced articles, second only to cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only visible in very brief listings at industry databases plus its own social media pages. Does not satisfy the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY or for that matter WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by nom, Johnpacklambert & Doomsdayer520 respectively. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, JPL and Doomsdayer. Non-notable label. The interwikis doesn't contain any independent, reliable sources either, might I add. (The Serbian page cites lots of sources, but upon closer inspection, they are not notable, as many of them are unreliable databases and similar sites.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, not a notable label. References do not give notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; I also think that the notability of its subsidiary Bassivity Digital is highly questionable Spiderone 13:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cowie[edit]

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

Players appearing in the Scottish Championship this season no longer get the presumption of notability through WP:NFOOTBALL as per WP:FPL.

In terms of WP:GNG, there are four paragraphs in this news source on his debut. He then gets name checks in Daily Record, Fife Today and BBC. In my view, not enough coverage in multiple sources for GNG at this moment. Spiderone 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable 16-year-old football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands does not currently meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough sources in one google search to pass GNG in my opinion. The article is perfectly structured, nothing wrong with it and we have draft space for a reason which you all seem to have forgotten. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that I found that was more than a passing mention was the DNG24 one. Even the BBC one doesn't really address him in depth. I wouldn't oppose draftifying but my understanding is that we only tend to do that if the subject is playing in a fully pro league and would be likely to pass NFOOTBALL soon Spiderone 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahin Abbasian[edit]

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

Until they actually play for Gol Gohar Sirjan, they don't pass WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not establish notability; this is the only one with anything even close to in-depth coverage. Some of them, such as Soccerpunter actually prove that he is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. We should wait until he passes WP:NFOOTBALL before creating an article on him again. Spiderone 22:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veaceslav Stăvilă[edit]

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

Completely unsourced stub about a historian, which literally just states that he exists, the end. As always, making a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia requires more than just saying that he exists -- notable awards for his work, third party critical analysis of his significance, etc. -- but nothing like that is present here. It bears note that the article has recently been blanked, without explanation or discussion, by an editor with the username of "Veac stavila" (obvious WP:COI) -- but if I look back at the state of the article before it was blanked, it wasn't appreciably better: all it ever contained was one additional sentence stating that he held a role on a committee, followed immediately by a contextless, unfootnoted WP:LINKFARM of external links to mostly primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting ones. And while there's an article on the Romanian Wikipedia, it's longer but not any better sourced, so we can't just pull over sources from there and call it a day either. His committee role simply isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing, than any version of this article has ever shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found an entry for a book he published, "Recea Străşenilor" (2009), in some sort of Moldovan national bibliography, but with no more detail than that. The Romanian-language Wikipedia article on him lists many more, but some of them may be self-published and the article makes him sound like some sort of amateur genealogist rather than a scholarly historian. In any case, that's not enough. Even for a book author, we need in-depth reviews about multiple books, not merely their existence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no indication the subject fulfills the criteria set out by WP:PROF or any other relevant policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this BLP is completely unsourced, and there just isn't enough out there to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Moldova (where the subject is listed, but not linked. Before this was reduced to a complete stub, this was the main statement in the article. This article has a list of members. It was established by presidential decree and the members are described as "doctors", suggesting the subject is an academic. The COI intervention, probably by the subject, suggests that he does not want a WP article on him. While that is not a reason for deletion, we should accede to his wish. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was User-fy. The page creator agrees that this was not suitable as a draft for mainspace, and wants to continue working on it in their userspace. Moving to User:MIDI/Beatles performers. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who performed on Beatles recordings/Table[edit]

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

Incomplete (A-K only) content fork of the existing List of people who performed on Beatles recordings, which seems to exist solely to reformat the exact same information in table form instead of bulleted-list form. However, creating multiple articles just to present the exact same list of the exact same information in different formats is not a thing we do -- if a table is desired, then the existing list needs to be reformatted as a table rather than having a bullet-list and a table-list coexisting as separate pages. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to encourage completion, seeing as how the nominator appears to have plenty of time to play around on Wikipedia but is evidently not interested in this. Comparing the two pieces of content, the table is the superior means to deliver this information. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As creator I agree with this work-in-progress being userfied – afterall, the intention of this table was to be a draft (though I appreciate that per WP:SP#Disallowed_uses this should have either been created in a different namespace). I'm happy to do the (uncontroversial) move assuming that's how the AfD goes! MIDI (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just having a small role on a soundtrack or reccording is not a major enough thing to justify a long free standing list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patrol vessels of the United States Navy. It's up to editors to determine whether to also merge something from the history. Sandstein 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS Lillie B (SP-1502)[edit]

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

A motorboat that was leased by the US Navy for a grand total of 138 days, saw no action during that time. Even the DANFS entry is pitifully short and not really enough to establish notability on its own, imo. A google search brought up no other coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy, where it is included appropriately in the list. If this craft had been commissioned, it would be an automatic keep - commissioning establishes notability - but as the craft is only described as "leased", in the absense of contradictory sources it seems clear it was never commissioned, and uncomissioned small patrol craft that aren't otherwise satisfying GNG are by precedent deleted or redirected. Logical redirect target and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. A quick check shows Ships' Data, U.S. Naval Vessels (1918) entry, sometimes a lead to a civilian history of interest, is largely blank. Palmeira (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comments. I see no indication that this passes GNG. Parsecboy (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but wait. I cannot argue with the general view that this naval vessel does not pass WP:GNG, but that only applies to stand-alone articles, not to inclusion in another article. Just turning this into a redirect effectively deletes the modest content altogether because the proposed target is just a straight index and has no provision for description. I don't think that this project should be telling the enquiring reader "Yes, there was a vessel Lillie B (SP-1502) that served in the US Navy. Period. There was some more detail but we've thrown it away." A suitable destination, whether a revamped List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy or a more appropriate spin-off, should be fixed first and then the merger can follow. Davidships (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've long suggested the treatment of the Lists of Empire ships be the model for all sorts of U.S.N. vessels of little importance other than a listing in DANFS. That is going to take a coordinated effort or a valiant single dedication to long term focus. Bluntly I doubt it will be done. I do not see keeping stand alone articles that are so thin as this until that "whenever" comes. What is here is a DANFS copy, as most are, so I think a note in the list with DANFS link is a good interim solution. Some of these SPs have interesting and notable yacht or other histories (one of my long term projects) but most were just mundane yachts and miscellaneous vessels. What is also lost is a reality that the whole SP thing was essentially a mechanism for a wealthy yacht owner to provide a base so he, relatives and friends could "play Navy" — unless the yacht got selected for distant service "over there" and the crews did not come back to the club after duty. That story is barely told here. Palmeira (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Davidships. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- A hired patrol boat is inherently NN. Only if its civilian career was notable could we allow a stand alone article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. Nothing notable is mentioned in the article and no one can locate other sources. // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources (which will be added when we have sorted out a revamp of the proposed destination so that it can me merged and then edited appropriately - I am working on the revamp at the moment Davidships (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goa University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Department of English, Goa University[edit]

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

Article about a university program, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for university programs. English is one of the most generically common university programs on earth -- virtually every single university that operates in an English speaking country, and even many that operate in countries where English is a popular second language but not the dominant language of the locals, will have an English program. So they can't all be "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from the parent institution -- making a university program in any subject notable enough for its own article requires some pretty strong evidence that it should be seen as uniquely more notable than the norm, not just documenting its existence the exact same way you could document the existence of every other university program on the planet. And for sourcing, we've got its own self-published faculty directory, the raw results of a Google Scholar search for the work of one professor, and three glancing mentions of the university's existence in news articles that aren't about the university or its English department -- which means we've got exactly zero sources that are helping to get the department over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goa University as an ATD. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goa University. Individual departments are rarely notable enough to justify seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goa University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. I note that this is a very small department. In total, it has 30 graduates in its PhD program, perhaps one of which is notable. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Empire AS ^Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawid Mocke[edit]

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

Not mentioned in sources 1 or 2, source 3 is a youtube video making this an unreliably sourced, promotional BLP of a non-notable person, also include in this discussion the unsourced Draft:Dawid Mocke which I moved from mainspace earlier during page triage JW 1961 Talk 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this book contains plenty of coverage but the rest just seems to be dribs and drabs online. I found this and this on ProQuest. Aside from loads of promo and non-independent stuff, there is this. If there were another source of the same calibre as the book, then this could be kept. Spiderone 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a 4 time surf ski world champ he should be notable. The sources are there - you just have to look. Surfski.info calls him ISPA Surfski World Champ - https://www.surfski.info/latest-news/story/1218/sa-surfski-champs-dawid-mocke-wins.html - and winner of a National level Doubles Competition. Thats after 15min searching. Currently unreliably sourced but you just have to look per WP:BEFORE Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the additional references (after 5 January), the link above and the book extract to be sufficient for notability. Particularly the book, thanks, Spiderone. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per source above and per the book I mentioned earlier Spiderone 11:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anyone who feels the current name is inadequate can propose a move on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese word for "crisis"[edit]

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

I believe the Chinese word is not notable because as a Chinese speaker, I've never heard anyone ever mention the alleged notability of the word, namely its composition from 危 and 机. So, no one in the Chinese-speaking community cares. Zh.wp does not have a separate article on the word, and the info is contained in the main article for "crisis". (zh:危机) 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination copied from WT:ATD. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, but perhaps retitle to indicate the status of the popular account as basically an urban legend. BD2412 T 21:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This content is essentially a summary of a series of blog posts by Victor Mair and Ben Zimmer. (Although the article cites Pinyin Info, Mair and Zimmer also blog together at Language Log.) They are quite interesting blog posts, and the urban legend they relate to is a hardy perennial, but I'm not entirely sure they alone are sufficient to establish notability. If this stays, I would like to see some independent sourcing. I imagine, though, that such sourcing probably exists. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed in the article aren't overwhelming but enough to show notability – Language Log especially is a solid reliable self-published source. Since the article is about a business-speak trope based on English speakers' misunderstanding of the Chinese word, it's not surprising that it isn't noteworthy amongst fluent Chinese speakers (or zhwiki). – Joe (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Refer WP:ATA. Opencooper (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not important whether Chinese native speakers know this; as the article states it refers to its usage outside of China. It has been used as a phrase in Norway at least since 1968 as far as I can document. In a 1975 book Johan Galtung claimed this meaning and even rendered the Chinese letters. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's argument is that this phrase is not relevant for Chinese speakers. The article is actually about how English speakers have turned a misunderstanding into a cliche. The sources are adequate here for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a significant and popular WP page, with some 141,426 pageviews in 2020. None of the established English Wikipedia criteria for deleting an article include the idiolectal opinions of bilingual Sinophones. Keahapana (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid reason for deletion is given. We have lots of articles in English Wikipedia that are not on their native language's Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Call signs in Canada. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of three-letter broadcast call signs in Canada[edit]

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

List of radio and television stations grouped on a criterion that represents trivia rather than a defining characteristic, and referenced entirely to directory lists rather than any substantive analysis of what might make this significant. This was clearly created to parallel List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States, which is also of questionable necessity but at least has a section (albeit unsourced) that provides some historical context for the grouping (as well as listing about four times as many stations) -- but the idea that any article that exists for the United States always has to be automatically paralleled by a matching article for Canada, regardless of any differences in cultural context or relevance or sourceability, has facilitated the creation of some awfully silly and pointless stuff in the past. The actual significance of this topic, in a Canadian context, could literally be dispatched with a couple of sentences in the existing Call signs in Canada, and there's no real reason why a standalone list of the three-letter outliers needs to exist as a separate page. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the "Call signs in Canada" article Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not group things based on a trait of their name, we groups things based on defining, unifying traits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's sourced, we have a category for this on US stations (probably a page too, don't quote me on that part), so why not. I'd like to see better sources...and that's possible with REC and the Canadian Communications Foundation historical database. So, sources are out there. It is also a rarity in Canadian radio and television, just like with American radio and television, so it is notable. I think it meets NMEDIA, as well as GNG. Just needs better sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:49 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
Merge: it should be kept by merging it into the list of Canadian call-signs, preferably as its own section. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I would have voted delete as this is LISTCRUFTFORK, but the merge won't seriously hurt the target article even if its trivia. Support the same for the US List is mentinoed above if someone wants to be BOLD. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NeutralHomer. Yoonadue (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with above, merge into Call signs in Canada - if the section ever got too big, it would warrant it's own page. But right now it would comfortable into the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a merge with List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States might actually make more sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Bearcat and Mlaffs, I'm going to ask your opinions on this one. But I don't think this is a good idea. I think leaving the two articles seperate and linking the two together with a "See also" at the bottom would work just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on January 12, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Well, that answers that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17 on January 13, 2021 (UTC)

Keep or Move the contents somewhere else per reasons listed by others (User:Neutralhomer, etc.) above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the "Call signs in Canada" article. Two thoughts on this. First, my knee jerk response is that I've never seen Bearcat steer me wrong when it comes to anything related to Canadian radio stations. Second, not only could the subject be covered in "Call signs in Canada", it already has been. As is currently noted in the article, "Three-letter call signs are only permitted to CBC Radio stations or to commercial stations which received their three-letter call sign before the current rules were adopted." That pretty much says it all. Mlaffs (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article on call signs in Canada. Presumably, it's possible to make a table that sorts the call signs by number of letters in them, yes? This doesn't seem like a particularly notable distinction, and if it is, it's one that can be easily achieved without splitting the content out into its own article. jp×g 14:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Sandstein 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4Dwm[edit]

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

Non-notable product of minority interest that does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Article has had the "Unsourced" template present on it since 2012 - can potentially be merged into IRIX. Foonblace (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A search for '4Dwm irix' on Google Books turns up many results. I imagine a Google Scholar query would turn up many more. I think it very unlikely this topic falls short of our notability threshold and it doesn't look like the nom has put any effort into finding alternative sources. If the nom doesn't rework the delete rationale, I am inclined to !vote for a speedy keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep - Poorly constructed nom that did not do the bare minimum in terms of looking for coverage outside WP. Many ghits for 'irix 4dwm' on Google Books (see my comment, above) and Google Scholar [3]: it is the nom's job to look through these before putting together an AfD. AfD is too overloaded for us to waste our time with this. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My google book search also returns several hits, nom failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE check. Jeepday (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There appear to be multiple mentions of this peice of software in 1980-1990's textbooks and manuals relating to/dealing with UNIX systems. Sohom Datta (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep as per above. Search is your friend. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gulbransen[edit]

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

This is mainly a long advert, replete with inline external links. Many refs, most of them managing not to mention the subject.

There is possibly one ref showing a glimmer of notability, in adweek, but we cannot see the content. Is it advetorial? Who knows.

Of the rest, LA Raiders is a passing mention. Turbotax does not mention subject. Mediapost passing mention. Resteraunt news passing mention. PR news no mention. Forbes appears to be a blog; not WP:RS. Reuters events advetorial. NYT Who knows. Subscription only. BadleftHook no mention. Nevada press minor local award. google search wtf? SI.com passing mention. USA today passing mention. Reviewjournal.com no mention. This article is an advert for a PR person. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:TNT. This is plainly a resume, not an article, and needs more editing that normally processed. But even if it could be fixed, I don't see how the coverage is anywhere significant.Bearian (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noms points appear valid, my search finds several passing mentions, nothing to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Agree with the assessment of the references above, a boring trawl; the only one with any real substance was one of the HR Block, if I recall aright. This is a bit of a resume, come to think of it. No real notability here. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Quinlan[edit]

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

Cannot find reliable, independent coverage of this writer, researcher and educator. May be be WP:TOOSOON. Has been tagged for notability since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A great person and very able as well. Skilled in various fields but unfortunately, he does not meet the requirement to be notable as per guidelines laid by Wikipedia. Neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:GNG or any else. I can be wrong, especially if some sources are found but i don't think there are enough. And BLP articles that are poorly referenced are subject to great criticism. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 11:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found what appears to be a reliably published review of one of his books in a language I don't read [4] but one review isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, I didn't find more, and the sources we have also aren't enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Thousands of teachers are now Google certified. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Canning[edit]

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

Like the last two AFDs, he still fails WP:NPOL and the rest is just WP:BLP1E. There's no real in depth coverage and this is mostly just a giant puff piece leaning on a coatrack. (ie. While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices. which is hardly innovative in Government much less from conservatives ;)) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ impartial/could care less It took me about five minutes to write, I was drunk and high and I couldn't give a ~~toss~~ monkeys whether WP keeps it or not.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note GRINCHIDICAE🎄 has left the project. I will implement their feedback in accordance with their last wishes and remove While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices..Ebbing and flowey (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It is perhaps borderline in terms of notability for a biographical article, but in my view there is possibly enough coverage in news sources and articles written by Canning to suggest he's had more general notability / news coverage than most other local councillors or former councillors in the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by Canning don't help to make him notable. We require sources written about him, in the third person, by other people. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 10 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 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability comes from works created by other people, not from works created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local government districts are not a level of political office that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL. Of the ten footnotes here, five are purely local coverage of the time that's simply expected to routinely exist for all local councillors whether they clear our notability standards or not, and thus are not GNG-bringers; two just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which does not help to make him notable; one is just a brief blurb verifying his initial election to council; and one is a piece written by him rather than about him. There's just one footnote here that's actually both substantively about him and from national media, and even that one is not about him doing anything significant enough to make him notable on those grounds per se. GNG, as always, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just whether n>2 or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many articles are about local government; as per Bearcat, these don't give notability and are Run-of-the-Mill for local councillors. I don't anything particularly mature about this fellow in this media coverage. Not GNG, I do say. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 19 (film)[edit]

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

This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: Both references are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are quite disappointing, in both this version of the article and the foreign-language version; it doesn't make a real assertion of anything that passes NFILM either. jp×g 14:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Poston[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MC and bar arguably is multiple award of second-highest honour. Position as Monty's aide has attracted references in books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arguable if two awards of the MC is "multiple times" for the purposes of #1 of WP:SOLDIER, but as that is just an Essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. He didn't seem to do anything notable unlike Herbert Wohlfarth nominated for deletion above. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search turns up indications of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Passes WP:SOLDIER #1 (which reminder "it's only an essay" is an Argument To Avoid). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's SIGCOV add them in. WP:ONLYESSAY is perfectly valid because WP:SOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an Essay that lists categories presumed to have SIGCOV in multiple RS. If SIGCOV in multiple RS doesn't exist the person isn't notable even if they meet one of the categories. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough: I've added The Times obituary written by Montgomery himself Piecesofuk (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meen (film)[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.