Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Delete
Line 80: Line 80:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxana Moslehi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxana Moslehi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W'at Abowt Us}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W'at Abowt Us}}
*'''Delete''' Non notable. [[User:Redoryxx|Redoryxx]] ([[User talk:Redoryxx|talk]]) 14:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:27, 27 January 2021

< January 25 January 27 >

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. — The Earwig talk 02:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career Insights

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

Seems to be a page made for a payment, sounds promotional; check the founders' page and there, it says that a major contributor to that article appears to have a close connection w/the subject. Refs aren't too great; only small regional references as far as I saw. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. With peacock language like "international digital technology company with a focus on offering e-work experience in Digital Project management" this would need to be started from scratch to be an encyclopedia article. Based on the local sources of suspect reliability, I think it's not worth our time. It seems like florid language has been used to create a veneer of importance for a run of the mill computer company, one of thousands, and one of hundreds in Nigeria alone. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company. I have not found any solid coverage and the language of the article is indeed promotional. The latter wouldn't be a problem to correct if the company were notable, but its not.Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.. Non notable Jenyire2 (talk) 19:13, 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. — The Earwig talk 02:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Springs, California

Rock Springs, 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)

This looks like another map interpretation problem. Small scale topos either show nothing or show this as a water feature; aerials show nothing at all. The GNIS source is again a large-scale map. I don't know what Durham says, but searching doesn't pull up anything I can identify with this location, not helped at all by the fact that "Rock Springs" is a common place name component. At any rate there's no indication that this was anything notable, whatever it was. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Former settlement that has no notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because is has not been demonstrated that it is a former settlement with much or little notability. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privaledge

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Has a review in a local paper, other coverage consists of extremely short "reviews" in some hip hop blogs (which appear to be announcements from the subject) and one passing mention by Washington Post. His songs have ~1,000 views on YouTube apart from one or two song featuring him which have 100K views. Has not won awards. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the subject have to meet WP:GNG, when WP:NMG seems to be more appropriate? -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 19:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to WP:GNG as I was discussing the available coverage, but if he does meet the musician-specific notability guidelines then that can be sufficient. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The XXL "presentation" looks paid for; either way it's insignificant. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see notability in any of the sources or in any combination of sources. Fails GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   12:44, 19 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 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairaj Varsani

Jairaj Varsani (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 was not able to find any sources to show a passing of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Gets plenty of hits but coverage lacks depth. The best I could find was this but even that source only address him very briefly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is no longer required, I have replaced the sources with more reliable sources from Books / Newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDP-Trooper1777 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned that Shepherd Management - an agency for actors - is not an independent source. Varsani appears to be a client that they promote. As explained on my talk page, the other sources only provide a name check (i.e. he is only mentioned once, so not significant coverage that addresses him in depth) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real notable coverage, bit part roles not enough to establish notability. Comes close with the BAFTA junior nomination, maybe in a couple of years, but they didn't win it and it's still only bit roles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as there's no significant coverage. May be WP:TOOSOON, but it's a no for now.Less Unless (talk) 16:19, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Fixing closure. Original nominator's withdrawal comment below. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced that the article is clearly warranted and further editing to fix issues rather than deletion is the answer. Thanks for the feedback. Bacondrum 10:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Running Waters

Massacre of Running Waters (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 relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source, a 19th century colonial, evangelical missionary. Colonial accounts from this era are famously racist and often wildly inaccurate. The one contemporary source, is Geoffrey Blainey, a highly controversial historian in regards to Aboriginal Australians and the culture wars, and Blainey is relying on the same aforementioned colonial account. This article was created by an editor who is now indef blocked for dedicating most of his efforts here to attacking an Aboriginal academic [1]. The editor who created this article also runs a site dedicated to attacking the same Aboriginal academic and Aboriginal people generally [2]. Looking at the way this article is phrased, the weird and irrelevant choice of images - why did we have an image of blood letting [3]? I believe this article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. Sadly this kind of nasty attempt to imply Aboriginal people were savages is common here in Australia. If this story was true we'd have numerous reliable sources, the events are fairly recent in histories page, no evidence of Aboriginal oral history documenting these events, which historians agree are usually highly accurate [4]. At the very least his contributions about Aboriginal Australians should be gone over thoroughly. Bacondrum 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The nominator doesn't present any policy-based reason. The claim that [th]his article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source is obviously wrong – it cites 6 sources. The nominator's characterization of Ted Strehlow is not supported by his article. Blainey is a highly credentialed prolific author and academic. His views on Aboriginal history, as shown in Triumph of the Nomads (1975) and subsequent publications, have been described as groundbreaking and sympathetic to Aboriginal people. The article's creator's circumstances should play no role in assessing the article. It is unclear which phrases the nominator objects to, and irrelevant pictures have been removed. It is also unclear how the article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. The nomination the descends into a blatant assumption of bad faith and hypothesis, appealing to evidence of absence, and presenting an unrelated link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If others feel the article is not meant to demean or attack Aboriginal people then fair enough. I see a lot of false equivelence and racism in Austhistory99's activities here. I do assume bad faith on the behalf of user:Austhistory99 they've been indef blocked for editing in bad faith which was mostly focused on attacking Aboriginal people and he runs a website littered with profoundly racist and deeply offensive content relating to Aboriginal people. I may be wrong and accept it if I am, but Austhistory99's efforts off wikipedia speak volumes:
"We on the Centre-right appear to be losing the day-to-day ‘cultural-war’ because we have real, fruitful lives and don’t spend mind-numbing hours on the keyboard ‘re-writing history and ‘the narrative’, like our Progressive-Left opponents do. Nevertheless, if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia ( the Oracle of the Progressive Left!) some real history from time to time. In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars. Today Wikipedia approved my entry on the Aboriginal inter-tribal Massacre of Running Waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters" - Austhistory99 @https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/
Bacondrum 05:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The concerns about the motivations of the (now-blocked) creator of the article may be valid, but I have to agree with Michael Bendarek here that there's no sound policy-based reason for deletion of this article. While some on the left disagree with some of Blainey's historical views, there is no question that he is a well-respected Australian historian and certaintly isn't someone where we can just disregard his writing. My feeling (in good faith) is that the nom's concerns about the article are really concerns about ensuring a neutral point of view and could be easily fixed by some edits to the page rather than deleting the article. As Wikipedia requires alternatives to deletion to be considered first, editing the article to improve it should be the first option. Deus et lex (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per posts above, the article is apparently about a notable event, with citations to reputable sources, and does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. (Note that "created by now-blocked user" is not listed as a reason for deletion. In particular, in the absence of evidence of ban- or block-evasion WP:G5 does not apply.) If the article is biased, then edit it accordingly to make it neutral, instead of deleting it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, fair enough. I'll withdraw this AfD and work on improving the article. Bacondrum 10:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alstom Citadis 305 (Sydney)

Alstom Citadis 305 (Sydney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content forking, is already or can be covered at CBD and South East Light Rail, Light rail in Sydney#Rolling stock and Alstom Citadis. Not sufficiently different from any other versions of the Citadis to require a stand-alone article. Caen5120 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom as a not-split-worthy content fork. per the main article on the type, the title is also erronious as the Citadis 305 is also used by three other systems. Nothing to merge as all pertinent detail is alread in the main article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 27 January 2021
  • Delete - per nom. There are also details of Australian versions of this tram here Alstom_Citadis#Oceania. Teraplane (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not necessarily in protest of this if the community finds the article as unecessary but as an example, various rolling stock on Melbourne's tram network which are likewise in a common "family" of trams that already have an existing article, still have their own Melbourne specific articles up. ie. The C-class trams are Alstom Citadis 202's, the D-class trams are Siemens Combino's, the E-class trams are Bombardier Flexity Swift's. Not sure what the standards are. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckmere Buses

Cuckmere 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)

Only decent coverage is 2 Eastbourne Herald articles - not enough to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Such as? The sourcing in the article is crap. The only decent looking BBC ref (archived here) is 5 sentences long. SK2242 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, of which there is barely any for this minor bus company. SK2242 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, NEXIST only points out that lack of sources doesn’t mean no notability, not the case here. I strongly urge you to reconsider your !vote. SK2242 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you can have a charity and community transport service which is not known and written about is absurd. Finding sources is just a matter of looking. See here for example – professional coverage of the bus industry which naturally competent and clear. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide more detail as to the level of coverage in the source plus the editorial standards of the website? I still don’t see any significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find the source to be quite satisfactory and it demonstrates that the nomination is erroneous. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination is perfectly fine thank you very much. That still does not look like significant coverage and I have no idea how reliable it is. Nothing erroneous with this nomination. SK2242 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated by the nom, the brief BBC coverage is the only reference currently in the article that can actually be used to try to establish notability - the remainder of the current sources are either press releases or the company's own website. I did some searches, both under its current and former names, and really did not come up with anything at all that can be considered WP:SIGCOV. I found a one-sentence mention in a travel guide, here. And there are a couple of articles in local news sources, such as this one, which is just a local report on a bus' wheels being stolen rather than any actual information or coverage on the company itself. Pretty much the only coverage I could find that talks more about the company in a greater extent than a couple of sentence is this blurb in another travel guide. WP:NEXIST is only a valid argument if there actually is significant coverage that can be found, and there just really does not seem to be on this small, local company. Maybe a mention & redirect to Berwick, East Sussex could be possible, but even that seems like it would be a bit undue coverage on what looks to be a fairly non-notable business. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, niche/local coverage only. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT/NCORP and BEFORE did not show SIGCOV from IS RS. Routine, mill, normal coverage does not meet WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk  12:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 02:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForgetMeNot

ForgetMeNot (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 app, no coverage or meaningful reviews CUPIDICAE💕 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per a lack of notability. The article's chief contributor, Offish tema6120 (talk · contribs) is presumably the same tema6120 who developed the app. While I commend them for their hard work in creating this polished open source project, Wikipedia probably shouldn't be promoting it yet. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorkhali Fazil Degree Madrasah

Jorkhali Fazil Degree Madrasah (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 madrasa fails to show signs of notability. The majority of the google search results on it bring up this article or the logo uploaded in commons. The school does not even seem to have its own website. Instead on LinkedIn it says to visit the Wikipedia article for more information. And in the article, the article itself was linked as a website [5]. An article about this school on Bengali Wikipedia was deleted in December 2020. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG; does not have multiple sources addressing the subject directly and in detail. The behaviour of the person who operates the Linkedin page (presumably the same person as the article creator) gives the impression that this article was created purely for promotional purposes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:MILL, and WP:TNT. I agree with the reasons above, and in addition, this seems like a run of the mill school, one of thousands of small madrassas in Asia. I don't consider small private religious-based schools to be notable, since anybody with a small amount of capital and an axe to grind can start one, and granting a degree needs to be verified with a reliable source. The wording and grammar are cringe-worthy. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Nom Jenyire2 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. None of the sources in the article are IS RS with SIGCOV and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  04:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sage, Kern County, California

Sage, Kern County, 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)

When the GNIS source is a large scale topo map, that is never a good sign, because it implies that it doesn't show up on smaller scale maps. And that is the case here, and the usual 1-to-24k maps have no label and show at first a single building and then add a water tank and various other buildings, in a configuration that changes considerably and which is unsurprising for an area that is barely out of town even in the oldest maps. Searching is well nigh hopeless what with all the sagebrush, but Gudde does show up, mentioning a "Sageland" mining camp from back in the 1860s which may or may not have anything to do with this spot. I'd say this fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searched JSTOR and Google Scholar using "Sage California" "Kern County" and "Sage, California" "Kern County" and found sage (sagebrush), Fort Sage, California, Sage Publications, and so forth, but nothing about a Sage, California in Kern County. These and other searches found a lack of any reference to a town / settlement of this name inside Kern County. Broader searches were impractical because sagebrush is all over California. Paul H. (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Tkacz (actor)

Andrzej Tkacz (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)

I do not think that this person qualifies under BLP rules. Also, I have it on good authority that picture in the infobox is actually of his twin brother :) Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance

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

PROD declined (Courtesy @Eastmain:). I am unable to find significant, in depth coverage of this organization and it's work to establish notability. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite sources added they are trivial mentions of the organization and do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Most states have alliances, not just for cancer but for other diseases as well, but generally they are not notable. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Google news has about 4 pages of results, mostly are passing mentions, but I think there is enough to show significant coverage and popularity. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can you please clarify which represent significant, in-depth coverage? All I have been able to locate are passing mentions and obituaries where donations were made. Nothing close to WP:ORG. StarM 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:38, 10 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Goenka

Shantanu Goenka (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 and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G4. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jugraj Singh (Author)

Jugraj Singh (Author) (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 author. Authored one book so far. No coverage for the book and author found in reliable secondary sources. Clearly fails GNG at the moment. Dial911 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sockpuppeteer confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jugrajsingh7 RationalPuff (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Nigam

Abhishek Nigam (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:NACTOR requires that the actor should have significant roles in multiple movies or TV series(emphasis on “multiple” ) The subject of the article doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from NACTOR. I believe this is way TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the one case of a role that might add towards notability, it is not even one of the "main" roles, but a recurring one. We have never come up with a full agreement on what is and what is not significant, but one role is not multiple, and in this case it is not even unambiguously significant. I am reminded of how we do not have an article on Elizabeth Barondes even though in the first two episodes of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman she was one of 9 main cast billed performers in the opening credits. To be fair this was a case where what was a significant role just got cut a little into the show, if the pilot had not worked and had been made into a film as was the backup plan, Barondes would clearly have a significant role in a notable production. Of course I think Kenneth Kimmins would probably be able to be counted in a significant role in Lois and Clark even though he never got top billed. Of course Kimmins had several other roles, including one listed as main cast in the Sitcom Coach, so if that ever becomes and article and ever then comes up for AfD, the Lois and Clark role will not need much discussion. Unless we go down the road that Bernard Klein is a cult favorite with cult following. He is one of maybe 4 roles that are unique to Lois and Clark and not from the larger Superman universe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis by John Pack Lambert. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto in Scorpio generation

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

Doesn't meet general notability guidelines, could fall under WP:QUACKS. Suggesting either a total delete or a merge with Milennials pinktoebeans (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidhar Kote

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

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [6], [7]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 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. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Democratic Society Party

Cambodian Democratic Society Party (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 Cambodian party that was created nine days before the only communal election it ever seems to have stood in. A single source, I can't find any others. The claim about support by the notable Rong Chhun or CITA is not confirmed by the source. Zarasophos (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

2013 Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the excellent reasons raised at this AfD for the 2018 tournament. My concern is that there do not appear to be independent sources covering this tournament in depth either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I have vacated the above no-consensus closure. The correct consensus of this debate was to delete. Notability has not been sufficiently established. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Kricket Challenge

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

Following this brief disucssion at WT:CRIC, it doesn't seem this tournament is notable. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, just because some notable players were there, it doesn't make this tournament notable. Fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A google search for site:espncricinfo.com "Ultimate Kricket Challenge", where I'd expect to find coverage of any major cricketing event, finds a passing mention in 1 (one) article. Rest of coverage seems to be promotional / listings. This should probably be assessed against WP:NTV as well as / instead of WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, broadcasted on major networks, features best-known players, if there's only one mention on Cricinfo then we may as well take down other articles such as Everest Premier League that have been voted to keep, SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; possibly warrants a redirect and a sentence or two in indoor cricket single wicket cricket per WP:ATD as it could be argued that it meets WP:NEVENT (novel format). There is coverage, but a lot of it is nothing more than reworked press releases, and the remainder is not enough to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that future editions will generate more independent coverage from diverse sources, and should that happen the article can be recreated. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a redirect, I think it should be to single wicket cricket; see my comments below. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that may be more suitable (amended !vote) – in any event, a brief summary and probably a redirect should be retained if (as seems likely) consensus determines this does not fulfil the criteria for a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep as a draft in case there's future editions that generate more coverage? SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article is largely promotional, highly unlikely ever to be notable. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could perhaps have a 'Cricket tournaments in Dubai' page which mentions it? Don't think one exists yet but they seem to hold a lot of tournaments which are not notable on their own but overall the numerous tournaments could be listed somewhereJagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep - this seems to be a form of single wicket cricket, which is notable enough to have its own article, and there have been a few tournaments of this form over the decades [8]. That, plus the notable participants, makes it pass WP:GNG in my opinion. WP:RS coverage here [9], the Hindustan Times; and perhaps more significantly, in Wisden [10] - I know it's just a reworked press release, but it's still Wisden. If deleted, it should still get a mention at single wicket cricket. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. ☎️ Churot DancePop 07:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per Adpete. extra999 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's shit, obviously, but it does seem to be notable enough to have gotten some coverage. I happened to catch 5 minutes of it whilst channel hopping, which was about four minutes more than it deserved. I suspect it's big on the Indian subcontinent and just because things are shit we don't need to delete them (I mean, England in the 90s were really shit, but we keep their tours). Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more points in support of my "weak keep": (1) Nowhere does WP:CRIN define what makes an event notable, as far as I can see; so we're on our own working that out. (2) As a made-for-TV event, it might qualify under WP:TVSHOW, which says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience". On the other hand, it also says "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage". To me that says this is definitely notable if it becomes a regular event, but is borderline if it turns out to be a one-off event. (3) But even as a one-off, the notable participants, and its similarities to the historically important single wicket cricket, push it over the line as "weak keep" for me. (4) Against the keep, is the total absence of independent press coverage; i.e. every media article I have found appears to be a press release. Certainly some truly independent discussion would help its notability. Adpete (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • aaaaand one more curiosity: I have just noticed it was not played on the broadcast dates, because on the broadcast dates Rashid Khan was in Australia playing BBL [11]. So it's more a made-for-TV special, for better or worse. Adpete (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayas Shilpa

Ayas Shilpa (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 nobility. Terribly fails WP:CORP RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dhananjay Diwakar Sagdeo

Dr. Dhananjay Diwakar Sagdeo (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 sure how this passed AfC. Not notable beyond the award he received, the 4th highest civilian award. Not seeing enough to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 02:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Losee, California

Losee, 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)

Again, I don't know what Durham says, so taking to AFD. Not in Gudde, no GNIS entry, not on topos. Newspapers.com results are for last names. No indication of anything meeting WP:GEOLAND here. Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Durham has the usual "map shows a place called Losee" with no context and nothing calling it a settlement, notable or otherwise. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked through JSTOR and Google Scholar and found nothing for Losee, California, except a number of people with the surname Losee. Paul H. (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all above opinions. Cuoxo (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, per above --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 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 no consensus and so it is eligible for the BOLD reformulation proposed below. Any disputes about this may be discussed using the normal dispute resolution process. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tinker

David Tinker (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 NSOLDIER. No RS for most of the details on the page. Opal|zukor(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Details and references are all found within the book A Message from the Falklands. MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mztourist. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not everyone killed in battle is notable. That is basically what we would have to set notability at to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, he may qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. The book has reviews [12], including in the prestigious London Review of Books [13]. A play has been created from the book [14], and is itself the subject of scholarly interest. [15] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if this might be redirected to a possible future article about his father Professor Hugh Tinker who has both an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and a UK Who's Who entry but no English Wikipedia article? Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure this in itself would make him notable, but The Stage and Television Today archive should have some interesting material about how the play Falkland Sound initially was banned from Plymouth but then was staged at a smaller theatre. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:39, 20 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 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the subject does have one book and it is reviewed I'm not sure I would consider them any more notable for that one book than any other author who writes one book. The play is an interesting spin on the subjects impact but the question remains to be determined whether a person's work, alone, can make them notable even if all that is referenced is the work while there is little to no in-depth coverage of the works creator. Is the work notable or the creator? While the subjects father or relatives may be notable that notability is not inherited. The subject must be notable and while the work they create or the heroics they may perform can be a catalyst in which notability is incubated and emerges, the works and events can not, themselves, be the sole source of notability that receives significant coverage independent of its creator/performer. I find, after conducting my own BEFORE search, in this case that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There are flashes but flashes are no better than mentions in that regard. Fails WP:SOLDIER, Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Fails WP:N, Wikipedia is not... WP:NOT --ARoseWolf 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to be about the book, which does seem to be notable, most of the article content is already about it anyways. Deletion is inappropriate because the notable book is memoirs of the person, making it really easy to re-purpose for the book itself. I can do it if consensus is reached here. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more references, and more about the book and play and his letters. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbal, California

Gimbal, 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)

Don't know what the sole source (Durham) says here, but it doesn't seem notable. This place does not appear on topos. No GNIS entry, not in Gudde. This calls it a railroad switch. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Using "Gimbal, California", a Google Scholar search yielded; "Your search - "Gimbal, California" - did not match any articles." The same result occurred for "Gimbal California". Using the same search terms in JSTOR yielded "No results found". Otherwise, there seems to be at least handfull of persons with the surname Gimbel to be found in California. I did not find anything of any significance about a settlement called "Gimbal" in California. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources come even close to verrifying this is a significant place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, claims of settlement fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For exactly the same reasons as all of the other thousands of GNIS/Durham-sourced stubs created by Carlos in 2009 which has to be the worst case of editor-negligence that I've ever seen and which we are ~6 months into clearing up with no end in sight (sigh). He literally spent maybe a couple-three minutes making each article back in 2009, even assuming good faith he was transparently just doing this so he could compete for the top spot on this list. As a result, here in 2021, 12 year later, we have to spend a week or more discussing each one at AFD to get them deleted if the PROD is declined. Fails WP:GEOLAND, mischaracterises Durham. EDIT: sorry to sound off about this but it really gets my goat when I see that I spent 2-3 times as long PRODing an article than the creator did creating it. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

József Boda

József Boda (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 played 158 mins of professional football, giving presumed notability under WP:NFOOTBALL but otherwise spent most of his career in the amateur third tier of Hungarian football. During a WP:BEFORE search centred on Hungarian sources I found this trivial mention and this piece in a blog. Blogs generally aren't given as much weight as WP:RS in a deletion discussion so I believe that Boda József fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per consenus at many similar AfDs. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet any reasonable notability guidelines. We need to fix our currently absurd football notability guidelines so they will be reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - total game time is less than 2 matches, and there is clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALl is insufficient when GNG is failed. GiantSnowman 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conducting a WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing reliable and significant. Of the opinion when a subject doesn't pass the basic notability requirements (WP:N minus all those SNG's) nothing found anywhere else should be sufficient to make that specific subject notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Take it to a blog or some other site if you want it on the internet. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scovern Hot Springs, California

Scovern Hot Springs, 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)

Connoisseurs of these discussions will guess right off that this is a former resort, and yes, that is indeed the case. Or one could just as well call it a hots spring that once supported a resort. Both of the facts are easy enough to document if one goes beyond just strip-mining GNIS and Durham. As to the question as to whether it is notable for what it was/is in reality, I'm leaning in the direction of "no": information barely goes beyond the raw fact of its former existence, that the remains burned down in 1971, and that the springs are still there, on private property. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it may not be considered a well-known formerly inhabited place, it is indeed a notable hot spring. I have improved the article to reflect that, adding sections for history and water profile and three additional citations in reliable sources, bringing the total to five. I will continue to improve it. The article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Netherzone (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to the possibility of notability, but in that case the article will need to be renamed to reflect that it is a geographic feature and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: If kept, I now think (due to improvements) it could run as either I agree that if kept, it will need to be renamed Scovern Hot Springs or rather than Scovern Hot Springs, California. It seems that at some point a redirect was created. If there is an admin or other qualified person to do that who may be watching this Afd wants to do a name change, that would be great. BTW, I found and added six newspaper references, including the Los Angeles Times. The hot springs were a popular spot for tourists in the 1930s and 40s, there was a dude ranch, hotel, bathhouses, and an annual rodeo was held there for years. It seems everything burned down in one of California's ubiquitous wildfires. I am just now discovering some of the archaeological history of the cite, and will also add (hopefully before the AfD is closed). A large cave with prehistoric artifacts was discovered nearby. Many hot springs were used by indigenous people for centuries before settlement by others; this may be the case here as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many hot springs in the United States had resorts either built on them or around them? Do we give an article to a hot spring because it exists? Do we give it an article because it had a resort built on it? What makes that hot spring more notable than any other? Where is the significant coverage? Where are the reliable sources? Before you quote an SNG, I get it, its probably notable according to an SNG and the article will probably be kept. That is the problem. Its only notable because of a criteria Wikipedia places in its guideline. Wikipedia makes it notable rather than the coverage. --ARoseWolf 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tsistunagiska, Please do a BEFORE search. If you would like to see the sources, see the article. It now has 14 reliable sources in books, newspapers, journals and websources including governmental sources such as NOAA. (And that is before adding any archaeological sources.) Regarding your statement that Wikipedia makes the Scovern Hot Springs notable rather than the coverage, that is quite incorrect, as the vast majority of the sources on both the hot springs and the former hot springs settlement are from many years before Wikipedia existed. I'm having difficulty understanding what is meant by "That is the problem." Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you would assume I didn't do a BEFORE search is troubling too. I, in fact did do a BEFORE search as I always do. I also looked at all 14 sources included in the article and I found many to not be as reliable as some would say in these situations. A lot or routine and local coverage you would expect for a location at that time, similar to the tourism commercials you see on television these days. National Geographic does a lot of these. Their work on geographical locations around the world and in the US is quite extensive and could be seen as routine for them. It's what they have done. It's what they do. It's in their name. My questions were valid questions. According to USGS estimates there are more than 1600 thermal-spring localities in the US and more than half are situated in the three States of Idaho, California, and Nevada. Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park, contains more than 100 hot-spring localities, alone. I've been to a lot of these, even those more secluded. We have hot springs all over Alaska. My question was a simple one. Of the more than 1600, why is this particular one more notable than those? What makes this one different? The argument a lot of times is that there must be something there. Ok, lets see it. My comment wasn't a vote. I am very much wanting to see what you come up with. So please stop questioning my judgement when its unwarranted as I haven't passed judgement. I made a comment. Thank you --ARoseWolf 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment using JSTOR, I found that according to indigenous oral histories that the sites of Isabella, Bodfish, and Scovern Hot Springs were the locations of prehistoric / historic Ttibatulabal villages according to page 635 of:
Park, W.Z., Siskin, E.E., Cooke, A.M., Mulloy, W.T., Opler, M.K. and Kelly, I.T., 1938. Tribal distribution in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist, 40(4), pp.622-638. Paul H. (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul H.: thank you for that citation, I will look it up and add it to the article. I've discovered there are four distinct names for the same hot springs at this location, so I'm also looking under those names. @Magnolia677: if you find a moment, please have a look at the improved article, it has been developed from a 3 sentence stub to a proper article now. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I found a write-up about Scovern Hot Springs on pp. 66-67 of Kern Canyon, Lake Isabella and Walker Basin, Kern County, California: Geology and Mining History: Field Guide by Gregg Wilkerson, California State University, California. There are a set of road-geologic maps that accompany this field guide. Paul H. (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul H., thank you for three good finds. I'll add any relevant info to the article + the citation. I appreciate the time you have taken to discover these sources. It's good to know about Wilkerson's work. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 02:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley McKessock

Stanley McKessock (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. As he is clearly not notable and the article was made by a family member, I have no clue why this lasted 9 years. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Bath-Hadden

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

Biography of a person notable only as mayor of a small town, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all automatically notable just because they exist, or because you can show a small handful of local coverage in the local media where coverage of local mayors is simply expected to exist -- the notability test for mayors hinges on the ability to write a substantial article about her political significance, delving into well-sourced detail about specific things she accomplished in the job, and not just on the ability to minimally verify that she existed. But the sources here are a single article in the local community weekly about her initial election as mayor in 2018, and a three-article blip of "mayor dies" in the local media within the past 24 hours. Making a small-town mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia takes a lot more than this: more substance than this, more detail than this, more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Obits in Global News and the Star: [16], [17]. The Star one is republished from a Brock newspaper, but it's still in the Star. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than just the existence of a handful of obituaries in the local media, where obituaries of local mayors are simply expected to exist, to make a smalltown mayor notable. We would need a substantial amount of ongoing career coverage while she was alive, not just a brief WP:BIO1E blip of "mayor dies", to deem her notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're not local media, as I said. One is in the Toronto Star, and the other was published by Global News. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brock is a suburb of Toronto inside the Toronto Star's local coverage area, and the Global News hit is from Global's local news bureau in Toronto (i.e. CIII-DT), not from the network's national news division. So yes, they are local media — and even if they did count for more, they still wouldn't count for enough all by themselves, because they still fail the "ongoing career coverage that enables us to write a genuinely substantial article about her political significance" test. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to disagree about the precise scope of local media. I happen to think that an obit in Canada's largest newspaper and a national TV channel is not local coverage, and I see no evidence that the Global News obit is marked as being from a local affiliate specifically. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we did accept them as more than local, that still wouldn't change anything.
Firstly, just because the Toronto Star reprints an obituary from a local community weekly in Toronto's suburbs that's owned by the Toronto Star, is not in and of itself an automatic free pass over WP:GNG that exempts her from having to have had any substantive career coverage while she was alive. The Toronto Star has given one-shot coverage to a lot of people over the years without giving them all instant notability freebies that exempted them from having to actually pass a notability criterion just because their name had been in the Toronto Star once. The Toronto Star can, and does, still cover people in local interest contexts that don't make the person permanently notable just because their name has appeared in the Toronto Star: local restaurant reviews, human interest coverage of people with disabilities, high school athletes, suburban municipal councillors, and on and so forth. We don't just hand people an automatic inclusion freebie just because the article has the words Toronto Star in it: we look at the context of what the sources are covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes that the article happens to have.
Secondly, the My Kawartha hit is the same article as the Toronto Star hit. Please read WP:CITEKILL, in particular the section headlined "Reprints": if the same article gets reaggregated by another media outlet, they don't count as two separate data points toward establishing notability, but rather they combine as one data point. We only care about which media outlet originated the content, not which other media outlets reprinted it later on.
Thirdly, if you click on Brittany Rosen, the bylined author of the Global News piece, her staff profile clearly identifies her as Global Toronto's Durham Region reporter, and not as a national reporter for Global National.
And finally, the notability bar for a mayor requires ongoing career coverage of her work in the role, enabling us to write a substantial article about her political impact, and is not automatically passed just because of the existence of a couple of obituaries the day after her death. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mayor who receives local coverage, as expected, within their community. Does not pass the basic notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:N minus all these SNG's that just cause more problems than help). An obituary is generally written by the family or someone close to the subject and not necessarily an independent assessment of their life or anything notable that they accomplished. Also, obituaries are generally not intellectually independent in that they are picked up by multiple media outlets but they are carbon copies of the same information. That, by definition, is not multiple sources used in determining notability on Wikipedia. Multiple is not a numerical measure but an intellectual measure. --ARoseWolf 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only local coverage. Doesn't meet the threshold of WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, she could only be included if she had done something else of note, such as winning a major award, being the first woman to be mayor of a town in Canada, etc. Deb (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not really notable. Sorry. GenQuest "scribble" 01:56, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Technology Leaders Awards

Canadian Technology Leaders Awards (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 appears to be a paid article; it uses all-caps, has a list of sponsors, includes a "media coverage" section, and uses bare URL references that are all primary source. The few third-party references I've found are all from 2014 (example: Canadian technology awards celebrate ‘Made in Canada’). There may be more, if anyone is interested in salvaging this article, but most of what I've found is behind a paywall. Mindmatrix 14:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per NOTINHERITED and GNG; reads like an advertisement or PR release, and no notability indicated from its mostly primary, self-published ref sources. GenQuest "scribble" 02:02, 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 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Banai

Balázs Banai (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 claim presumed notability through WP:NFOOTBALL because of 3 mins of professional football but a WP:BEFORE Hungarian search yielded no significant coverage and only trivial stuff like this. There is clear consensus in over 100 recent AfDs that failing WP:GNG is far more important in borderline NFOOTBALL cases like this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its only source is in Hungarian. It still has a Hungarian Wikipedia article though. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he has good coverage in Hungarian, then the article would still pass GNG. I could find nothing in my search, though, and have a good grasp of Hungarian having studied it for many years. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear consensus that failing GNG is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails basic criteria for inclusion (WP:N minus vague SNG's). The result is that the subject is not notable for Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a Hungarian, I say that he is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:HEY applies. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Diana

Gabrielle Diana (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 notability; explains role in a company that has no further information and no longer exists. Status as an influencer/singer rather suspect. Written like self-promotion. W3985abp (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a very bad nomination: The nominator has only made two edits and they are both on this article. You should have scammed this article before nominating it. This article passes N that you said it didn’t pass. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind to delete. Although it cites many sources, most of them are unreliable. –Cupper52Discuss! 15:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell based on the assessment made according to news sources Wikipedia has discussed it would depend mostly on how mtv news is seen. Would that be considered reliable though it hasn't been discussed or assessed for its news reliability? I don't know their editorial process at mtv or the level of oversight. And if so, would we consider what is said in those articles as primary or secondary? Also, is there enough information that may be independent to call it significant coverage? --ARoseWolf 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. It's borderline WP:TNT. I started to work on it, and have given up. I think she is notable based on WP:SIGCOV, but the article needs a lot of work, more than I can handle. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I've tried to bring the article up to WP standards as much as possible, but am still on the fence. She does get credit for creating a hashtag, and being named The Advocate's "25 trans pioneers of 2015." The rest of the coverage is either A. her social media; or B. Her mother giving her a cake for her name change/transition. Per HEY, do you mind looking again and seeing what you think and if that influences your !vote? Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There might be something here, but it needs a lot of work. There’s a ton of OR/autobio without proper attribution. I’ll try to clean it up a bit, but some sections just need gutting. —Kbabej (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, being impressed by the group effort to remove all the unreliable sources and unsupported claims, and to comply with the manual of style. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After working on the article, I think it meets notability requirements. There's coverage from Gay Star News, The Advocate, and Out Magazine. She's created a popular hashtag on Twitter and been included in The Advocates "25 trans pioneers of 2015." --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which are considered reliable independent sources. What is their editorial process? How much of the information included in these articles is sourced directly back to the subject which would make it primary? Improvement has been made but what can we base reliability on? A lot of these stories repeat the same information too. That would be considered a single source according to the guideline for notability. I want the article to remain but it needs to be concrete and irrefutable that she is notable and passes the guideline. --ARoseWolf 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting none of the sources are reliable independent sources? GSN, Out, and The Advocate are all well known, notable, and reliable publications. —Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia Journalism Review appears to treat The Advocate, Out, and NewNowNext as legitimate news outlets, e.g. ‘No one else is going to speak for us’: LGBTQ media rise in age of Trump (CJR, 2017) Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, and I just added The Independent source referenced above to the article, which also appears to be providing commentary on Gladu's activism, e.g. "Transgender rights have come to mainstream attention in recent years, thanks to the work of campaigners as well as celebrities..." Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found and added information from Cosmopolitan magazine that provides commentary on Gladu's #MomentsInTransition activism, and I also added a reference to a report from Buzzfeed News about it. Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article does not have enough reliable sourcing to support a stand-alone page for this BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty much per Tsistunagiska. I don't want to pour cold water on any of the effort that has gone in to improve the article, or indeed on Gabrielle Diana generally (without wishing to play the "all my friends are" card, a close friend of mine is transgender) but on a sensitive BLP like this we must make absolutely sure we get the article completely and utterly right using the highest quality source material that's available. And I just don't see that in the article at this time - we really need to get strong coverage from major news outlets. Did she stand up and object to Trump's transgender military ban and was it covered in national broadsheet papers? If not, why not? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After some additional research, I found a 2016 New York Times article that includes a profile of Gladu and verifies details in the article that are independent of her hashtag activism and the cake publicity. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three different reliable sources( Buzzfeed news, the independent, and people) , and numerous other sources are enough to meet notability here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Persistent, multi-year coverage of this transgender activist is found in multiple reliable sources and documents multiple events. Clearly meets WP:GNG. This is a WP:HEY situation, I think. For the record, this is exactly the situation where some source-hunting before delete !votes is useful, because it would suck to see more (sometimes generally lacking) coverage of lgbtq minorities removed before said articles get a chance to be improved. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep enough coverage. Meets WP:GNG Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:53, 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. A redirect to Patten River can be created if desired through normal editing processes, but there is consensus here that this article does not meet the notability requirements for geographic features. Hog Farm Talk 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Clive River

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

Likely an original research. References provided do not show a river named as such, neither the measures reported on the page. Natural Resources Canada official directory of geographical names shows no such name. Webfil (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any sources to support this river exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be fair, this river is explicitly named as an "area covered" in this topographical map — but it's still a very minor river at best, and I can't find any sources that would render it notable. It's not our role to maintain an article about every river on earth that happens to appear on a map — our role is to keep articles about rivers that can be verified by written sources as having some credible claim of significance, not just every river that exists on earth. Creator is also a problematic editor who has a longstanding pattern of disregarding Wikipedia practice in a lot of ways — he genuinely seems to think we need or want an article about every single body of water in his geographic region of interest, and his article creation binges virtually always need somebody to come through and do a massive cleanup job afterward for bad structure and grammar and nonexistent categories — and while that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does raise questions about his competence and his willingness to collaborate and listen. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - All rivers should have a Wikipedia article. Geographically, it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP. This article informs readers well. The information contained is a good description of the watercourse. A lot of time is spent by editors designing good geographic articles on WP. Congratulations to those who apply themselves to writing well.Veillg1 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veillg1: What particular parts of WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND are supported? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, all rivers should not have a Wikipedia article. There are literally millions of rivers in the world, and they aren't all of any significant public interest — the bar for having an article about a river is that there's coverage about the river to show that it's significant, not just that the river technically exists. (And that goes especially when you're trying to support it with sources that don't even properly verify its existence in the first place, such as directories that don't name it and maps that don't label it.) We're an encyclopedia, not a gazetteer, and there are rules to establish what's notable enough for an article and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP As you've been repeatedly told by various editors, it's not for the reader to search the internet to verify what you have written. As per WP:BURDEN, it's for you to verify what you have written with references from reliable sources.--John B123 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Patten River Delete- (change to delete after reading later comments about the Patten -Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)) I usually support the keeping of river articles, but this needs deleting/redirecting as per Bearcat. I agree that many of these articles are poorly written and sourced, which isn't a reason for deletion - but this one is barely on the map, let alone enough sources for a decent article.-Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even Patten River isn't referenced to any sources that actually support its existence either, so I can't support a redirect to an article that's also potential deletion bait. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies to Patten River, the only reference is a dead link (and was dead 4 years before the article was written[19]) The most recent archived copy (Jan 2013[20]) doesn't mention the Patten River. --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something is not inherently notable because it exists, otherwise who wants to write my biography here on Wikipedia? For a river to be notable it should have multiple intellectually independent sources describing it in a significant detail and providing reasons for why it is different than any of the other millions of rivers in the world. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:N --ARoseWolf 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until you bother to look for some relevant and alive sources, you can improve this article and make it reliable. For now it does not seem notable, sorry. UpcomingPurseTalkToMe 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. No, not every fork and creek is notable. It has to be shown by at least two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments, particularly SIGCOV and MILL. Onel5969 TT me 18:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Richter

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is written in an unclear way. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything unclear about the article, and, anyway, if it was written in an unclear way that would be a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing here even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's Comment The user RRfeatures - current adding a bunch of sources either self published or with passing mentions - appears to be another name for Reverie films, which is Richter's production company. Pipsally (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I've left a message for him/her. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth nothing this appears to be a self-created article by the subject to begin with. The new sources being added have no substantive references to Richter's personal notability, being largely listings or non-notable reviews.Pipsally (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20161227200530/http://primeiroplanocom.com.br/site/index.php/academia-internacional-de-cinema-inaugura-curso-de-som-para-cinema-e-tv-no-rio-de-janeiro/ Yes ? No Mention is fairly brief ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1753573/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 No IMDb is not reliable No ✘ No
https://lfs.org.uk/content/raindance-selects-center-gravity-and-when-song-dies Yes Yes No Just a name check ✘ No
https://oregonconfluence.com/2013/01/27/birds-of-neptune-a-film-by-steven-richter-is-currently-in-production-in-portland-or-to-be-released-in-fall-2013/ Yes No Blog Yes ✘ No
https://www.hammertonail.com/film-festivals/slamdance-2015-preview/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://screenanarchy.com/2015/01/slamdance-2015-review-birds-of-neptune-of-malady-and-mysticism.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/slamdance-unveils-remaining-2015-lineup-exclusive/ Yes Yes No As with the two above, this is a passing mention ✘ No
https://eatdrinkfilms.com/2015/02/05/slamdancin-in-park-city-ficks-top-five-picks-and-a-batkid-bonus/ Yes No Blog No ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2015/01/portland_independent_film_make.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://silverscreenriot.com/birds-of-neptune-review/ Yes No No ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4132010/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 No No ✘ No
http://revista.algomais.com/cultura/academia-internacional-de-cinema-oferece-bolsas-para-formacao-em-audiovisual Yes Yes No Doesn't appear to be mentioned ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaMoEPRY-Ps&ab_channel=AcademiaInternacionaldeCinema%28AIC%29 No No ✘ No
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrad/fq0502200718.htm Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
http://roteironews.blogspot.com/2010/05/robert-mckee-em-sao-paulo-e-no-chile-em.html ? No Blog No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Al-Habahbeh

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; no evidence of any senior appearances for Al-Ahli. Will happily withdraw if evidence does come to light. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 14:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy_Corporation

AfDs for this article:
Remedy_Corporation (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 a very old page, about a corporation that was acquired and stopped existing 20 years ago, in 2001. The References and External Links are old and redirecting, or in some cases defunct. For example, ARSList ended in 2019, and Remedies for Remedy hasn't existed for quite a long time. The only recent changes to the page seem to be spam addition of https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/remedy-software-guide/ by a suspected sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sedgedorrit. Wattssw (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is a problem here? Being old and defunct certainly is not a valid deletion rationale. Pavlor (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per many reliable independent sources covering the topic from multiple points of view, absolutely passes WP:N, no questions asked.78.36.163.169 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no Remedy product anymore, no Remedy website, no Remedy groups. All external links on the page are defunct, the recent reference is spam from a sockpuppet. The page would need to be cleaned up and would then be considered a stub. Wikipedia isn't a historical log of every company that existed. This is a not-notable relic from the past. Wattssw (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no virtue in deleting the article. There is still a Remedy product - it is the Action Request System and it is currently sold by BMC. There are still active user groups and customers. I can try and clean it up (I haven't paid much attention to it in a while), but, since Wikipedia is not paper, I feel we are richer with this article than without it, if only slightly. -Armaced (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I would suggest merging with the successor company, but the company history here indicates that would not be a clear way to handle this. WP is an encyclopedia , not a current business directory. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rasoul Bahmani

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

Whilst the BLP PROD concern was resolved by addition of one source, I can find little else out there about Bahmani outside of coverage on Twitter. This is also an apparent autobiography as the article creator has the same name as Bahmani does on his Twitter page. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor any relevant SNG. He also fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject meets neither GNG nor our notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any coverage by reliable sources to meet GNG. The first hits are the tweeter account with the same username as the author, so I agree with nom that this seems like an autobiography. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree with every reason by all contributors. I could not find a single reference (let alone reliable/signif ref) in a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers. I could not find a single reliable/signif ref via Google search. Agree that account that created page seems to be single purpose and editor name matches Twitter account of the page's subject. Fails GNG; fails SPA; fails NPOV. Cabrils (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport Futsal Club

Stockport Futsal 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 been tagged for multiple concerns for almost 7 years now. I could not find any strong coverage in a WP:BEFORE search myself. Scrolling through the seasons here, you can see that they never played at the top level and seem to disappear entirely after the 2015/16 season and their activity on Twitter also ceases at that point. Due to not meeting GNG and not having any suggestion of notability by default, I would suggest deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Was tagged for notability the same month as it was created (March 2014).–Cupper52Discuss! 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Nigej (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that there is absolutely nothing to suggest this is a notable club. Dunarc (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mockelberg

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

Originally G14 CSD, but was disputed. This page does not meet the criteria for a DAB or a set index article. Servers no navigation function, only entries are nn fictional characters w/o articles.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not disambiguating anything (though I assume you meant G14?). --IWI (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This is a surname article, should keep it, because this page records the surname Mockelberg's information, the information is very important, if there is something wrong with this page, please modify it, thank you. --Lord Djibril (talk) 1:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete to be a surname article, we would need actual reliable sources that actually discuss the surname. These are lacking. In fact, since both of the alleged uses involve fictional characters, I am less than convinced this is a real surname at all. There are very few fictional surnames worth having articles on, and to justify such as article they need a fictional back story, not just being dreamed into existence for one character. Now, this may be a real surname had by real people, but no evidence of that has been presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No we do not. Per WP:Name pages, all that is needed for a valid {{surname}} page (an SIA) is links to two articles in enwiki about people with the same surname. There is no guideline which says they cannot be fictional. Narky Blert (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This article is reliable already, although the page is records about some fictional characters, so shouldn't have the double-standard to judge the article. Maybe you think that the surname displayed on this page is unnecessary or too unpopular, but this surname is still used by some people and should not be deleted casually. I guess the reason why the author created this page is that everyone can recognize this surname. This article without any malicious intent. I agree and admire the author’s approach. In addition, this page has been updated, and the evidence for Mockelberg’s surname has been added, so it proves that this surname is a real surname. You can check it if you don’t believe it. In last, I urge everyone to help keep this page, thank you. --Everstonerelm (talk) 5:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: I came here expecting to defend a surname article ... but neither of the persons listed is notable enough for a mention in the articles linked, and the reference is to a general genealogy site with no information on this name, so... delete. PamD 12:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nelleis is a similar page - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelleis. PamD 12:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groht. PamD 12:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This article should be keep and defend, you say the reference was no information about the surname, just look carefully, you can find the surname's information. This website records the information of Mockelberg’s surname and the information of other people who have this surname, which fully proves that this surname exists in this world. Other websites also record the information of this surname. These evidences clearly exist. Carefully look up the information of this surname and you will understand what I said. Well, if I am not clear enough, please take a good look at this paragraph: The immigration list on the website clearly lists the names and personal data of immigrants with this surname, these are all evidence. In my opinion, this page does not have too many problems, so please do not make unnecessary attacks on this page. I admire the author’s efforts. Please keep this page, protect the information on this page, and save the page, thank you. --Stronehaster (Stronehaster) 2:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
     Checkuser note: Lord Djibril, Everstonerelm, and Stronehaster are confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord Djibril. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmm, interesting. There are three "Keep" votes. The editor who created the article in question "Lord Djibril". Then "Everstonerelm", who has not edited since November 2019 but whose few edits include edits to Panzer, Jibril (disambiguation) and Djibril, and "Sronehaster" who has made just one previous edit, in 2018, to Panzer, which happens to have also been the second page edited by "Lord Djibril". Could just be a bunch of mates interested in tanks and in fictional surnames. PamD 15:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And "Werstone" has just !voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groht and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelleis, having just one previous edit to ... guess what ... Panzer. Time for SPI I think. PamD 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is something refreshing, almost wholesome in the transparent innocence displayed in the above socking.  // Timothy :: talk  18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what sort of article this is supposed to be, but it doesn't really matter. If this is a DAB, it's G14 eligible. If it's a set index article, it fails WP:SIA. And if it's a standard article, it fails the GNG. In any event, it fails the relevant guideline and ought to be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find any sources giving any actual info about this surname; it probably does exist as a variation of some other surname somewhere in the world but, unless it is actually documented in a reliable source somewhere, it shouldn't be kept. Alternatively, this page could be kept if it has a definite navigational purpose but it fails on that basis too. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither target mentions the name. I found non-WP:RS evidence for the name's existence in myheritage.com (a different link from the one in the article). None of the bearers looks in any way notable, and dewiki nowhere mentions the name. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Not every name used in a fictional universe is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dowell Baum

Ryan Dowell Baum (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 fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. It was created in November 2007. Less than a year later it was tagged for one source, and eight years after that it was tagged for notability. Also it’s lead section does not include any sources. Looking closer, I can only see that he had one major role during his acting career and two roles during his whole career.He does have an IMDb page, but there are cases like this that have happened before. –Cupper52Discuss! 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss!
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss!
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss!
  • Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, and also very little coverage to be found online. --IWI (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as either an actress nor as a minister. Yes, she is probably one of a super small handful of members of the United Church of Christ born after 1975, it is one of the dying seven sisters of "Mainline" Protestantism in the United States, but that alone is not an actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Gupta

Prerna Gupta (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 have a considerable skepticism about people in ordinary occupations who have professional glamorous photographs.This at least is honest: its the credited work of a professional photographer, not a transparent pretense at "self"

But the claimed notable work is developing a non-notable product, and then writing a non notable book. The only way this could have generate news stories is if they were PR stories; nobody would have cared otherwise, and neither should we.I don't trust single one of them for being objective and independent. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Does have quite a lot of good citations, but I don’t think it passes WP:NBIO. –Cupper52Discuss! 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep Most sources are about other things that mention her. The CNN Money and Vogue India links seem to be the best. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be notable, if weakly. (For what it's worth, I've heard of the app, and it has its own article with decent sourcing.) The sources don't appear to be PR by the standards of the field (in which everything is PR, but we've ruled that some count as 'reliable' for Wikipedia purposes). At least three of them (the two Oaktree mentioned and the Sunday Times piece) strike me as fairly clear GNG passes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, albeit needs more reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Made in Lagos. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essence (Wizkid song)

Essence (Wizkid 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)

Apart from being featured on Barack Obama's favourite songs of 2020 playlist, there is no indication that this song is one of the most important songs in Nigeria or Africa last year and it's not notable. Please an expert on Nigerian music should review this. Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charting does not warrant notability. The only criterion that matters is "third-party independent coverage". Read carefully: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. HĐ (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Made in Lagos. A search on Google shows minimal results on this song, thus there is not enough material for a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NSINGLE is a crystal reflection of WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I'm voting to keep because the single has reached #1 on a significant UK chart, which means it's an international record not limited to Nigeria. The fact that it was on Obama's favorite songs of 2020 playlist shows that it also has United States and international exposure. It's also on a major record label. Additionally to the 2020 playlist, it's now February 2021 and the song was gained momentum, peaking at #1 on the chart. I am aware that the criteria for establishing the notability of a song say that being ranked on a chart does not automatically imply notability, not even winning a Grammy!!! This is why I believe these guidelines should be revised. Also, let's remember these are guidelines, not laws. TanookiKoopa (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 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 no consensus. Essentially, there is no strong agreement on whether or not simply being a Grade II listed building is enough to be important for a global encyclopedia, and whether or not there is sufficient coverage of sources such that the article can be improved. The "keep" side suggest the coverage is sufficient, and the article is in reasonable shape, while the "delete" side have suggested it isn't, and it's not possible to improve the article to an extent it could be maintained by anybody. The discussion has also deteriorated into personal attacks from both sides. I have no objection to the RfC as proposed by Black Kite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog & Bull

Dog & Bull (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:NBUILDING and WP:GNG, purely WP:MILL, no SIGCOV in multiple RS Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be harassment contrary to WP:HOUND. This arises because the nominator and I have had an unrelated dispute and now he is going after my creations as a form of retaliation. They were specifically warned about this by @Lar:.
As for the topic, this was created in response to a request here. The place in question has a history going back to the 12th century and is listed for legal protection by Historic England. Naturally there is plenty of coverage in the many books about London pubs such as the Good Beer Guide and London Heritage Pubs.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:HOUNDing at all. I PRODed numerous pages, which you dePROded and so I and other have put those pages up for AFD all as I explained on your Talk Page: [21]. You can't just create pages about your local pub ignoring GNG. In 2010 there were 374,000 listed buildings of which 92% were Grade II, so about 344,000, so it's not at all notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist made two PRODs just two minutes apart: [22], [23]. The only connection between these articles is that I created them both. Neither topic falls within Mztourist's usual interests. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew I have been watching your Talk Page since I posted there, that is how I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Munro. That led me to look at your Articles Created where I saw that you have a 7% deletion rate which indicates to me that your understanding of WP:GNG is less than perfect. Looking through your articles I saw several that appear dubious, I PROded 2, you dePRODed both and I have so far AFDed one, this one, your most recent article. Take it to ANI if you have a problem. Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus to delete Sandy Munro. The other article prodded by Mztourist for "uncontroversial deletion" was Eudo Mason but notice that we don't have an AfD for that as promised: "I will put any page that you dePROD up for deletion." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sandy Munro closed as no consensus, congratulations your 7% deletion rate remains intact for now, well done you. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Share the link, I can't see it there. Mztourist (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, historic building, covered in reliable sources both for its architecture and its role as a pub. The other points should be at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide these RS, they're not there at the moment. Mztourist (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable; and your hectoring is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The local newspaper, the local council, a bar guide, a Heritage listing and then various passing references. Do you really think that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS that this is a "notable historic building... both for its architecture and its role as a pub"? It doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING which requires: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said: "You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Written above. Mztourist (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NBUILDING Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Grade 2 listing meets this, as this is a National listing not local.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at the wrong part, the relevant part reads: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can I be using the wrong part? The bit you quoted and the bit I quoted both come from the same WP:NBUILDING. Listed status in the UK are designated as per: In the UK, the process of protecting the built historic environment (i.e. getting a heritage asset legally protected) is called 'designation'. To complicate things, several different terms are used because the processes use separate legislation: buildings are 'listed'; ancient monuments are 'scheduled', wrecks are 'protected', and battlefields, gardens and parks are 'registered'. A heritage asset is a part of the historic environment that is valued because of its historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest." Therefore it is officially assigned the status of national heritage by the UK government and so therefore notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you quoted applies to artificial geographical features, what I quoted specifically applies to buildings. As I said above, as at 2010 there were approximately 344,000 Grade II buildings in the UK, so its not at all notable. This pub is not a National Trust or English Heritage site, which would be required to fall under Cultural Heritage. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the listing for Geographical feature "Conversely, human settlements or other engineered forms are considered types of artificial geographical features." A Building is a human settlement. As per the other quote I gave, which is also on Wikipedia, this has been designated a Historical asset. If a site is owned by National Trust or English Heritage is because they have bought, or been given (mainly due to death taxes) a site that has been identified by the government as a historical asset. The listed status is more important. Remember this is the building, not the pub that is important and has the listing. Because there is 344,000 odd Grade 2 buildings doesn't mean they are not notable, they have been identified as historical assets by the state, which means they are national heritage. We don't say footballers are not notable because there is a few million who have played pro football? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criteria are those for buildings not geographical features. Footballers is a red herring and they don't all have pages, nor do all 344,000+ Grade II listed buildings. SIGCOV in multiple RS is the key here and this doesn't have it, its just another old English pub. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nationally listed in the UK, therefore passes WP:NBUILDING. We have had this discussion at AfD many times, and it always ends up as a "keep". Edwardx (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, Grade II listing is not automatic notability! There are half a million listed buildings in the UK, and there is no consensus whatsoever that all of them are immune from deletion without having to show significant coverage. The claim above this is false and many pages of Grade II buildings have been deleted. In this case however, there may be adequate significant coverage attesting to the history and recognition of the pub. Reywas92Talk 00:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is your opinion, nothing more. Grade II building clearly do meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT as written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everything British is notable by virtue of being British." doesn't apply here. Neutral. While Grade II listing is nice, it is barely sufficient to grant notability. The pub is however mentioned in several sources too, so deletion is a bit of a stretch here.--Darwinek (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't appear to be any policy (or even a guideline) that suggests Grade II listing is any sort of pass to notability (NBUILDING requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources"). Given that, there's nothing here. The Historic England entry is a listing. The Layers of London entry is a listing. The CAMRA entry is a listing. The other two sources that are actually about the pub are local newspapers. My local pub is also Grade II listed - parts of it date from the 1570s - and I could easily find twice as many sources about that - and probably more in-depth ones - as are on display here. But I'm not going to, because that pub isn't notable either. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's listed then it clearly is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't. If It was Grade II* then possibly, but there are over 350,000 Grade II buildings in the UK and the vast majority are completely unremarkable. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear GNG failure with almost zero SIGCOV. Any editing disputes are completely irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. SK2242 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing is incredibly thin doesnt pass the "in depth coverage criterion of NBUILDING. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The official Historic England listing is sufficient for notability in this case. Redoryxx (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. Yes, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" does apply to buildings. What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? The paragraphs underneath simply provide further guidance on features that are not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? things like Tumulus and Anglo-Saxon burial mounds for example - but NOT buildings. Simples. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And would like to show us consensus for that minority opinion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is your basis for saying that is a minority opinion? GEOFEAT has 3 bullets, the 2nd bullet relates to buildings, but you are trying to say that all buildings actually fit under the 1st bullet which is not supported. Mztourist (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, this is a pretty good illustration. Not exactly a full consensus, but far more of a consensus that Grade II buildings are notable than that they're not. You can also see that thinking (including mine, incidentally) has changed over time. If you read the AfDs you'll see that many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would interpret it any other way. Buildings clearly are "artificial geographical features". It seems to me like just a further attempt to claim that more and more topics are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... As is evident Grade II* are generally notable, while Grade II buildings are notable if they have SIGCOV in multiple RS, but just being Grade II is not an automatic pass on notability. No, I do not agree that "many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwent House clearly shows this, as do the discussions here. Mztourist (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... Snidely questioning my integrity again are we? I see little consensus here that your opinion is in the majority. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Always amusing seeing you take apparent offense at behaviour that you routinely practice with those who disagree with you. Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject falls under second point of GEOFEAT "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already stated, no, it falls under the first point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Necrothesp: The Dog & Bull is a building, and so point 2 applies. SK2242 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, but it is also an artificial geographical feature, so point 1 applies. Point 2 is merely saying that if a building does not meet the criteria of point 1 then it can still be notable. Blatantly obvious to me (and many other editors). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You read a lot into GEOFEAT that blatantly isn't there. Nowhere does it say that if point 1 doesn't apply to a building then point 2 applies.Mztourist (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a grade II listing. [24] Listed_building#Grade_II Grade II: buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. I believe they are more qualified to determine a buildings notability than some random Wikipedia editor. Dream Focus 15:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No SIGCOV. Grade II listing is the lowest level in system and covers more than 300,000 buildings. It shouldn't automatically confer notability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that it's authoritatively covered by Nikolaus Pevsner (county architectural surveys of England) and that it has a Grade II listing shows that the pub is notable as a building. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per Edwardx, Dream & Chiswick Chap, plus per the extensive coverage in reliable sources.
Dog & Bull joke

This email arrived yesterday from one of the crew I was with on my last visit to this pub back in 2008, so Im taking that as a sign one of y’all might find it LOLish.


~Went for a walk with my new girlfriend and we saw dogs mating. She said: “How does the male know when the female is ready for sex?” I replied: “He can smell she is ready . That’s how nature works.”

We then walked past a sheep field and the ram was mating the ewe. Again my girlfriend asked: “How does the ram knew when the ewe is ready for sex?” I replied: “It’s nature. He can smell she is ready.”

We then went past a cow-field and the bull was mating with the cow. My girlfriend said: “This is odd. They are really going at it. Surely the bull can’t smell when she is ready?” I said: “Oh, yes; it’s nature . All animals can smell when the female is ready for sex.”

Anyway, after the walk, I dropped her home and kissed her goodbye. She said: “Take care and get yourself checked out for Covid-19.” Surprised, “Why do you say that?” I asked her.

She replied: “You seem to have lost your sense of smell.”~

FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this ends up being kept I suspect an RfC on Grade II listing is required, because at the moment many people appear to believe that it confirms some sort of notability on what in most cases are 350,000 completely unremarkable buildings. Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unremarkable buildings are the ones that don't get listed and there are millions more of those. In any case, the numbers are unimportant because it is our clear policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, we can accommodate any number of articles. As a result, Wikipedia now has 6 million articles and counting. We should expect many more as there are millions of species, populated places, politicians, pro sportspeople, &c. Listed buildings are comparatively straightforward to document because the listing gives the basic architectural features and history which can then be rounded out with a photograph, map, coordinates and the like. This then works well with our mobile app which specifically tells readers about notable buildings in their locality. And that works well with projects like Wiki Loves Monuments. Why would we want to damage and disrupt this natural and productive activity? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but not for non-notable pubs, like this one. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Most of the keep !votes hinge on whether or not Grade II listed buildings meet the auto-notability requirements as per WP:GEOFEAT, however, in other discussions on other topics, any classification with so many recipients would fail that test (e.g. Silver Star recipients - approximately 150k). WP:NBUILDING, while saying that buildings "may" be notable due to their historic record, clearly states that these must be backed up "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which is clearly not the case here. I think Black Kite's suggestion regarding an RFC on grade II buildings is warranted.Onel5969 TT me 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and "OPPOSE OPENING AN RFC ABOUT GRADE II". It has long been my understanding that, as a rule of thumb, Grade II* and higher (not Grade II which is lower) listed buildings in the U.K. are expected to be Wikipedia-notable, based on the numbers of places of each type and most importantly based on the typical availability of reliable source info from, what, "British Heritage" or whatever is the typical source. (To Americans, this is roughly equivalent to saying most of 95,000 or so individually-NRHP-listed places are likely to merit articles, because the NRHP registration documents will exist and usually will have lots to say, while places which are merely among 1 or 2 million contributing buildings in NRHP-listed historic districts won't necessarily have any substantial info about them available in NRHP documents.) These are just rules of thumb, one has to leave discretion to editors, about whether it is worth creating an article. But note, a good photo or two conveys a whole lot, is worth ~1,000 words of factual text. This place is apparently Grade II, but there are pic(s) and the editors have cobbled together a bunch of text-info sources, some about sort of trivial-sounding things, which nonetheless add sufficiently to the baseline "Grade II"-ness of the place. There cannot be a hard and fast rule that all places Grade II and lower are not notable (easily contradicted by many examples obviously meeting wp:GNG), nor that all places Grade II* plus must have articles. It is up to editors' discretion to choose where to develop coverage; editors might choose to cover a bunch of historic sites including high-designation ones in one list-article for a local area, and there may be no need to split out separate articles. I can't see what an RFC would usefully accomplish, and whatever "rule" it could come up with would not apply here, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently a significant community asset. We have barely started documenting the deep architectural and social heritage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia IMO. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grade IIs are deemed notable per GEOFEAT as cultural heritage. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. North America1000 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Wave Drum and Bugle Corps

Heat Wave Drum and Bugle Corps (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 is unsourced to anything except dci.org, which is not WP:RS. A standard WP:BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find RS coverage that is WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails notability. Chetsford (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyaşi principality

Pinyaşi principality (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 was moved to draft space then again submitted for release without any improvements, I tried to find some sources about what it might be, but WP:TNT is best I guess. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I link to the former deletion discussion.

This was the version it was when it was draftyfied and this the one it was re-released in main space wikipedia. No major improvements made besides a wl and adding categories. And this was made by the releasing editor, not by the creator of the article. Here and here, I link to the discussions I held before nominating it for deletion this time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete the article, just a name dispute?.

frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a name dispute. What the article describes now, is what as to me makes some sense, but I really have some doubts if what I wrote is correct. this was the version released in Main space wikipedia. With a phrase like Shahkulu Koci Bey was also killed, and his death was divided into two as Shahkulu gentlemen, Salmas and Somay, and some of them were linked to the Ottoman Empire. What does this mean? Two are some of them and why does it matter that they are linked to the Ottoman Empire? Then Shahkulu Mir Aziz got all the weapons and sent them to Van. For this reason, the Shahkulu Sons were called “Gazıkıran”. What is Gazirkan? The ones who receive weapons in Van? Is the article originally called Shakulu sons about a principality, a dynasty or Gazirkan? If such questions are not answered reasonably, TNT is the best.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said, I need to improve the article but there is a wrong situation here, not a solution, you can fix where you find wrong. just a name dispute?. Frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It is not a name dispute, the dispute is about what the article is about and if the subject is notable enough to remain in main space Wikipedia. There is not a single member of the Shakulu sons/principality which can be wikilinked to of from.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see an article on a minor polity (not a sovereign state). It has a series of citations that look credible to me (though I have not checked them). The dispute (reflected in this AFD) appears to be over detail. If it does not quite make sense, that needs to be resolved by editing or by tagging for clarification. Discussion of these matters should take place on the article's talk page, NOT though an AFD nomination. It is clearly not a case for TNT unless it is utter rubbish and unsupported by the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also do not see the problem justifying deletion. If there is disagreement about the accuracy of contents, it should be reoslved on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 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. I find TimothyBlue's rationale the most persuasive in the debate, along with a general consensus for deletion. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kollam

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

Disputed redirection to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (I redirected it per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES; User:Aravind V R reverted). This is a poorly-sourced article about a school that is either WP:COI or original research. Citations are to self-published sources except one press release. I'd like to get consensus that this school doesn't meet our notability criteria. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on my searches I assess this to be a notable school. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep: Navodaya schools is a network of schools funded by the central government in India. There is one such school in every district and provides free education to meritorious students in every district. The school used to have a dedicated website but now the government decided to have a single website for all schools, possibly to not drain government funds on domain fees. The absence of a dedicated website might have caused this confusion that this might not be a notable school, which is not the case. These schools, in most cases, are the best public schools in every district. I just noticed several schools listed in List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas have their wiki pages being removed by some self-righteous editors who are doing a huge disservice to this encyclopedia and are wasting the time of several editors who have contributed to these pages. Most information added in these pages might get irrecoverably lost due to the such irresponsible activism. Aravind V R (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do a minimal research on the notability of a page before suggesting it for deletion. A google search might prove enough. Aravind V R (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. None of the sources in the article are IS, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV and no sources have been provided above. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  04:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
kindly see No inherited notability, and No inherent notability, the latter guideline specifically mentions schools. In short: this school is not notable only because it's parent school/organisation is notable. To become notable, this school also has to pass the relevant criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a 3rd time as an involved editor disputed NC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and relevant SNG criteria we have for highschools. Navodayas are no exception, unless and until we talk about the whole system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember nominating a number of JNV articles for deletion, once bundled, but sadly, lesser participation, or the procedural close of one, left me somehow having bad response. Offcourse few were deleted. We should have a different policy on JNV schools, or atleast include one in the policies. These are so many JNVs in India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:35, 21 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Bolli

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

City manager (city also has a mayor) of Covington, Washington, population 21k. Does not have major coverage, does not pass NPOL. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


What does NPOL mean? It does have a very local coverage though. It has been in the local newspapers multiple times. I am pretty sure there is a local SEO for it. and I am just trying to increase the volume of the articles. Qian Nivan (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the link WP:NPOL; it is the inclusion criteria for politicians for Wikipedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being city manager of a small city in the 17K range is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and referencing the article entirely to the city's own self-published website about itself is not how you source a person over WP:GNG. To be notable for this, he would have to be getting nationalizing media coverage far, far beyond just his own local media — every city manager in every city is always "referenceable" to the city's own website and/or a few shots of local journalism in the local media, but that does not make every city manager notable. As always, the fact that a person's existence is verifiable in primary sources is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — to be includable here, a person has to be able to show properly sourced evidence of their significance, not just proof that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he is the city manager of a city with roughly 20,000 that is within the Seattle metro area, in fact probably one of the smaller overall cities in the county. This is not a regionally significant city in any way. His previously management in Ephraim, Utah was at least in a city that is one of the two major point of population in the county, and considering it is the location of Snow College, it may be the most populous point in that county, although it is overshadowed by Manti, Utah due to Manti being where the temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, one of only 5 temples that have operated over 100 years (3 others in Utah and 1 in Hawai'i), and so Manti is historically the most important city in Utah between Provo and at least Cedar City. Still, Ephraim does not have the influence that would make its city manager a notable person by default and the sourcing is just not here. The city where I grew up Sterling Heights, Michigan, which has roughly 100,000 people lacks an article on any city manager as far as I can tell, although Steve Duchane I suspect would actually pass notability, but it would take a lot to find the coverage. He was the city manager for well over a decade. He was first removed in the context of the Detroit News Plant strike and basically running on a plank to reinstate him caused a turnover in the city council. That was in 1994 I believe. Than about 2006 Mr. Duchane was removed when during various disputes and lawsuits it was revealed he had lied on his resume and did not have the masters degree he claimed. I know if I dub out old issues of the Macomb Daily I could fully document this, as we could create a much fuller article on James Fouts the mayor of Warren, Michigan who really needs a better article (he was my high school government teacher in 1998-1999 when he was also a member of (and I believe at that time president of) the Warren city council. Our current article says way to little about his roughly 30 years on the Warren City Council. A big issue will be if Macomb Daily and even Detroit News coverage of Duchane is just local coverage, or if we can find something of higher quality. I have to admit that I think he is a crook and does not deserve any recotnition at all. If we do have an article on him it should reveal his lieing on his resume, but I just do not feel like spending the time to write such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete City managers or city administrators, or even most staff of a municipality of any size would not pass WP:NPOL and would need to meet WP:GNG. Assorted local press would not get an individual over that bar. --Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am not trying to argue on this article. But on my next article does it matter if a person has run for office. Qian Nivan (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I was hoping to put more detail on all the cities around Seattle. It just happened to be that I live in Covington, WA. Qian Nivan (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running for office does absolutely nothing to establish notability. A person has to have held a notable political office that would pass WP:NPOL, and gets no bonus points just for running as a candidate per se. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 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 , noting Bearian's comments for why this is NCS rather than Keep. Daniel (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit Haber-Schaim

Shlomit Haber-Schaim (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 fails WP:GNG. Has only one source Jenyire2 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 07:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her extensive work, with a lifetime of occasional successes, adds to the source material. The Smithsonian permanent collection holding doesn't come easy or else it would include millions of artists, and adds to her notability range. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Wait. I'm inclined to agree with Randy Kryn, she definitely seems notable even if poorly sourced. WestCD (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:09, 10 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. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ling

Sally Ling (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 know the boston Globe is generally reliable, but I am not sure of whether it is for local restaurants--especially when the quote for how good the restaurant is comes from their attorney. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no actual signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, it looks like the restaurant Sally was made famous for has closed down. I'm not seeing enough coverage on it's history to warrant WP:N either. Redoryxx (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continued coverage in The Boston Globe and Boston magazine, among other publications. Through a quick search, I've found several articles that were not cited (which I am now trying to use to expand the article). More could probably be found with some effort, particularly by looking through pre-internet newspaper archives, from the time when the original restaurant was still open. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She, or at least her eponymous restaurant, is notable per in-depth press coverage. Boston Magazine said the restaurant was "a legend"[25] and Scout Magazine called it "famous."[26] pburka (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig talk 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Semmes, Anne (1994-11-27). "Dining Out; Chinese Dishes With a Difference". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "With the friendly, generally efficient service by waiters in black tie, and the polished, comfortable setting, one's expectations for the food are high. But although some dishes are good, others are lackluster. Novelty dishes, timid seasoning and carved vegetable garnishes in Day-Glo colors probably won't draw Fort Lee's large Asian population. The restaurant is obviously trying to be user friendly for non-Asians."

    2. Jones, Catherine (1999-01-17). "Restaurants; Chinese in the New Year". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "Though its focus on healthy cuisine is not a constant, Sally Ling's offers a good bargain, an extensive selection and incredible service. In the year to come, I can only hope the cooks become more aggressive with their seasoning, more confident with their restriction of fat and more inventive with their culinary creations."

    3. Smith, Ruth Bayard (1999-03-19). "At Sally Ling's in Fort Lee". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "In Boston in the mid- to late-1980s, Sally Ling's name was synonymous with upscale Chinese food, while Ling herself was touted as a force on the city's gourmet scene. No Formica countertops, no high-fat cooking, no communication barriers; her restaurants (at one time she had six in the area) provided true dining experiences."

    4. "Sally Ling's: 'Light and Healthy' Selections". The Star-Ledger. 1995-10-29. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Sally Ling's is a storefront establishment a few blocks from Route 80 in one of those ubiquitous small strip malls, but it's nicely decorated in pastels with an art deco flair, many cuts above the average neighborhood Chinese restaurant."

    5. Hoffman, Barbara (1994-06-24). "At Sally Ling's in Fort Lee". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "There's an old rule of thumb old, and not necessarily true that you can judge a Chinese restaurant by its clientele: The more Chinese customers you see, the better it is. Which is why I felt pessimistic at Sally Ling's, as I stood behind the Himmelfarb party and glumly counted the house. But when the food arrived, my doubts dissolved in a sea of silky dumplings, savory hot and sour soup, and sizzling seafood."

    6. Saunders, Gus (1994-05-29). "Dining: Renovated Sally Ling's offers delectable, unique Chinese fare". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "When Sally Ling's opened on the waterfront seven years ago, with tuxedoed waiters, an excellent wine list and an outstanding menu, she was the first to introduce Bostonians to an elite style of Chinese food."

    7. Levey, Robert (1987-10-01). "A Matter of Taste: Upscale dining in Copley Square". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2074230040. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Since I was recognized on my visits, service was extremely attentive, but any diner will note the almost excessive attentions of the staff.  The waiters are skilled in presenting the kitchen's specialties. When your order arrives, they first show the prepared dishes to the table and then retreat to a nearby station and deftly divide the portions on individual plates."

    8. Levey, Robert (1984-09-13). "A Matter of Taste: Chinese Cuisine, Manhattan Style". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 1734129693. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Sally Ling's opened on the waterfront three months ago proclaiming itself to be 'a gourmet Chinese restaurant.' If you are beginning to suspect that this glorified description might be reflected in the prices, you are right. It is very easy to spend $80 per couple here for dinner, drinks, tax and tip.  ... Sally Ling's is a unique addition to the Boston dining scene. It will strike some as over-priced and pretentious. But I suspect it will also become a favorite for others who are attracted to its upscale style and very good food and who don't worry about the total on the check."

    9. Levey, Robert (1989-02-23). "Spectacular setting for Chinese cuisine". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2444954402. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.

      This is a restaurant review. The review notes: "Sally Ling's gourmet Chinese restaurant made its name five years ago by introducing to Boston a fancy Asian menu and choreographing a luxurious dining experience involving sleek contemporary decor, tuxedoed waiters, tableside service and much pampering."

    10. Levey, Robert (1986-10-28). "To China with Love". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 1952929269. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.

      The article notes that the last time Sally Ling was in China was when "her family left the country when she was a month-old infant". It noted that she traveled back to China for the first time in 1986 "as part of a small Massachusetts culinary delegation that is embarking on a remarkable 15-day Chefs' Tour" in a trip her husband, Ed Liu, set up.

    11. Jenkins, Arya-Francesca (2007-03-16). "Sally Ling named 'Person of the Year'". Fort Lee Suburbanite. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes that the Englewood Cliffs mayor, James Parisi Jr., selected Sally Ling as Person of the Year in the city. The article further notes that Fort Lee Rotary Club selected her as Person of the Year. It notes that she was born in China and resided in Brazil when she was a teenager. It notes that at age 17 she traveled to the United States as a foreign student.

    12. Hanes, Phyllis (1988-02-17). "Chinese New Year. Dining out in America". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      The article notes: "Ling was recently an instructor of Chinese cuisine as a member of the Master Chefs of Boston seminar series on the Boston University Culinary Arts Program."

    13. "Openings / Expansions". The Record. 1998-06-10. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      The article notes about Sally Ling's, a Chinese-Japanese restaurant: "Sally Ling, who has 20 years of restaurant experience, and her daughter Christina designed the interior, which is suggestive of a rustic Oriental courtyard."

    14. "What's cooking: Renamed Ha Ha lets Sally Ling laugh last". Boston Herald. 1997-01-12. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.

      The article notes: "The name Sally Ling's, identified in the '80s with a trendsetting Chinese restaurant, all but disappeared when the Boston waterfront restaurant closed and the Newton restaurant changed its name to Ha Ha."

    15. Levey, Robert (1988-01-26). "Sally Ling's Moving to Cambridge". The Boston Globe. ProQuest 2227935737. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sally Ling and Sally Ling's to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summers, California

Summers, 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)

The name does show up on the topos, early on, near a building which is likely still part of the ranch that occupies the site. The font on the map is Gothic, not Roman, which may indicate why the GNIS cite is to a DMA map rather than to the topos: someone in the first GNIS sweep may have figured out that this was the Summers place and not a settlement. At any rate, searching produced exactly nothing, so not notable. Mangoe (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All indications are that this is a ranch, not a community. As an aside, the 1943 Packwood topo calls this place "Sumners". WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In JSTOR, I searched for ("Summers California" and "Kern") and ("Summers, California" and "Kern") and recieved the response" "no results found". I also searched for "Summers California" and "Summers, California" separately on JSTOR and recieved just more than a couple of dozen hits. None of these had anything to with an alleged settlement by that name. Searches using ("Summers California" and "Kern") and ("Summers, California" and "Kern") yielded more hits on Goggle Scholar. However, there was nothing promising in regards to there being a settlement by that name in Kerns County or anything else of any significance. As expected, searching without "Kern" on Google Scholar proved useless in determing anything. If someone wants to keep this stub, the burden of proof should be on them to provide positive evidence of both the existence and significance of this entity as a populated place. As it stands, I agree with Mangoe and Hog Farm. Paul H. (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Ranches and ghost towns are not automatically notable; they need sources. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Payment Services Organisation

Irish Payment Services Organisation (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 evidence of notability, most sources I found were trivial and did not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Article seems promotional overall. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In terms of the applicable criteria (WP:GNG and WP:NORG), while there is some news and industry coverage of the subject (for example this tag-based topic in one of the main newspapers of record in Ireland, the Irish Times), the subject is not the primary topic of the majority of coverage. For example, when sorting by relevance, the top news hits include articles like this. Where the subject is mentioned, but the primary topic is something else. Created by apparent COI profile, and so WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMO concerns are raised. Guliolopez (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Promotional," per the nomination? Quite the reverse. The IPSO was an obscure part of the plumbing of the Irish banking system before post-Euro integration of Irish payments made it less necessary. The four big banks that controlled it preferred to keep the IPSO invisible to ordinary users. Most of us prefer not to think about how payments and cash withdrawals make their way from the point of transaction back to our bank accounts, but this plumbing is still vital. The article needs proper sourcing, which I will now try to do. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now rewritten the article almost in full. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is the article was significantly rewritten and reworked after the nomination for deletion, which also included the addition of seven new sources. An analysis from other users regarding those sources would benefit this discussion at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of valid sources. Could also rename/create new/then merge into/link to a "Banking in Ireland" article, but I think there's enough to justify its own article, maybe expand it a bit more.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:35, 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 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prettyman, Missouri

Prettyman, Missouri (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 state historical society source does not call this place a town, rather it says A switch on the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad in the western part of Grand River Township; established sometime after 1870 and named for T.F. Prettyman (1853- ), who owned the land on which it was built Topos show an isolated railroad point. Newspapers.com is for last names and a Prettyman Road, nothing on Google book or Google to disprove the statement that this was a railroad spur switch, not a community. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete given that there's no source that actually says that there was something notable here. The topos and aerials show nothing, and I cannot even verify that there was a switch here, much less that it was a notable rail location. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found neither evidence of notabillity for Prettyman, Missouri, nor anything indicating it even exists as a settlement / populated place. The name is distinctive enough where something should show up if it actually exists. Example of representative searches are:
I. Google Scholar - some searches
A. "Your search - "Prettyman, Missouri" - did not match any articles."
B. "Your search - "Prettyman Missouri" - did not match any articles."
C. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" - found that the surname Prettyman is found among Univeristy of Missouri alumni and Missouri judges.
II. JSTOR - "No results found"
III. GEOREF - "No results were found"
IV. Google Search - some searches
A. "Prettyman Missouri" and ("Prettyman" and "Missouri")- both searches yielded seemingly infinite number of hits for clickbait recycled from the "Prettyman, Missouri" Wikipedia page.
B. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" and "cultural resources" - archaeologist named Prettyman, who worked in Missouri.
C. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" and "archaeological" - archaeologist named Prettyman, who worked in Missouri. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Skywalker family#Han Solo. Consensus is against keeping. Whether and what to merge is up to editors. Sandstein 14:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo family

Solo family (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 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 (not a single source linked discusses the concept of this family in depth, it is mentioned in passing few times and other than that this is a fancrufty plot summary and WP:SYNTH of information about his sister and other relatives). WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar (but I did find three sources - but they are of dubious reliability and don't go beyond a plot summary, but maybe they'll be of some use to someone in the future): [27] (plot summary), [28] (just plot summary trivia about various family members, the family itself is not discussed in a dedicated section), and [29], which again is not about the family as about various relations of its members. I actually think the meme article would be a good addition to the article about Han Solo himself, b/c really it's all about him. But his family doesn't seem to meet our requirement for stand-alone notability. Let's discuss. Ps. There was an old AfD about it in 2004 and even then it was split half and half between keep and delete - and remember, in these early days everyone and their dog tended to be inclusionist :P PPS. Another solution could be to just prune it down to a disambig without a need for a hard delete, perhaps. And before someone tells me AfD is not for discussion of creating a disambig, remember - technically this had an AfD 16 years ago so it needs another one as otherwise one could be in turn accused of disregarding past consensus (which some apparently did judge 'keep' back then, sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 26 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 03:02, 26 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 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not yet done a WP:BEFORE to see if there are any further sources not cited in the article, but I have reason to believe that there are plenty to be found given the significant amount of coverage generated by the Star Wars IP in the past 6 years. My response as follows:
    • If I was on Wikipedia and had participated in the 2004 AfD, I would have supported deletion. If the article had seen little to no improvements 16 years on like certain obscure articles which have been gradually rediscovered years later, I'd say the nominator's AfD rationale is fully justified. However, that is clearly not the case here: the article in its present state is extensively sourced, and all of the cited secondary sources only came into existence post-2004. An editor mentioned that they did an extensive rewrite of the article back in 2012 to cleanup its issues and it clearly shows, although there is certainly room for improvement. The state of the sourcing clearly makes a WP:CCOS for the topic and does not give the impression that the issues with the article is insurmountable and requires a hard WP:TNT, rather the opposite and the various measures proposed by WP:ATD should be considered. I would say that it also meets WP:GNG since the themes surrounding the Solo family form a significant plot element of the Star Wars EU novels pre-2012 as well as the new sequel trilogy, but a caveat is that the Skywalker family article actually duplicates much of the scope of its contents because of the marriage between Han Solo and Leia Skywalker.
    • There is a tag for a merge proposal with the Skywalker family article since August 2020 (which have not yet been removed), but no discussion had actually been initiated by the proposer and it's been just left as is, outside of a few comments by other editors who were understandably confused by the lack of an actual proposal by the mergist proposer. I am not sure why the nominator did not proactively pursue that option and restart the discussion, instead of attempting to force a cleanup through AfD (and AfD is WP:Notcleanup) since there are clear solutions recommended by WP:ATD.
    • I personally feel that a deletion rationale which argues that a topic concerning the Solo family is really a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Skywalker family article makes more sense and might get support then trying to construe the topic as non-notable, which is eminently not true. However, this article on the face of it also seems to meet the requirements of WP:LISTN as Han and Leia have two distinct sets of children between the Legends and the canon universes, and so some prose which puts both versions of the Solo family into context in such a list article makes more sense then in the Skywalker family article. One idea to improve/cleanup the article is to rename/move the article into something like a "List of Han Solo family members" if editors feel strongly about the idea of consistency in the article's title and that it should be renamed, but this should be dealt with in the relevant article's talk page, not AfD.
    • Lastly, I would appreciate if the nominator would cease misrepresenting the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) essay as a "requirement" in every fiction-related AfD they commence. There is no SNG for fictional elements on Wikipedia. It's really misleading to less experienced editors who may not fully comprehend Wikipedia's complex hierarchy of bureaucratic rules and especially its complex notability policies, and it really doesn't lend any credibility to the nominator's arguments with many experienced editors. Haleth (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no reason to have an overall family article. Anything worth covering can be covered on the articles on the individual people. This article is basically way too focused on in universe issues and not enough on real world issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few of the individual characters have proven notability with reliable sources. But this is an original synthesis of those separate notable articles into a new topic that itself isn't notable. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK and doesn't cover anything unique that isn't already covered at the individual articles. A redirect to Han Solo as the main notable character would be fine. Jontesta (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Skywalker family, where the Solos are already covered. No need fo duplication, but merging/redirecting is preferable as an alternative, since it is a plausible search term.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Jontesta. As they mentioned, while a couple of the individual characters in this fictional family are certainly notable, there are no real sources about the family tree as a whole, and combining information for those several notable topics into a single article is WP:SYNTH. Even the few reliable, non-primary sources being used currently in the article are on specific, notable individuals, not on the family as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:SYNTH and fancruft. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Skywalker family. I find this suggestion compelling, as there that page is notable, and adding the Solo family information in the article makes sense to me. Timmccloud (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with/to Skywalker family as a plausible alternate search term. These families are - for the purposes of plot - inextricably linked, and the Skywalkers are the more notable (sorry Han!). An awful lot of this article is 'fancruft' written about in-universe topics, of which there is plenty of coverage at our hairy cousin. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as primary sourced without enough sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:41, 10 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. There were some calls for keeping all or some of the article, possibly via a merge or draft, but the "History"-section of Healdsburg, California already contains the verified historical landmarks in the city leaving nothing more to merge from this article. Since Healdsburg is a small city with only a small number of historic landmarks it would be easier to expand that section than trying to rescue this article via the draft namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California

List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, 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)

As discussed at User talk:MikeVdP, this list-article is not adequately supported. I propose that it be deleted outright, or moved to Draftspace. A list-article on the topic of historic sites designated by the city/town of Healdsburg, and also including any historic sites within Healdsburg that have been designated by higher-level governments, would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if adequate sourcing were provided. For example, newspaper articles, and especially some sources establishing what is the correct proper noun name for Healdsburg's official designations. So far, here, there is documentation somewhat supporting fact of potential historic sites being surveyed (often a preliminary step to historic designations) but there is not outright coverage of the topic as would meet requirements of WP:LISTN. The creating editor has a big workload already to address sourcing and other problems of other list-articles, and has been cooperating, but this one has lagged and would best be removed from mainspace. Doncram (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BLAR – A short cut and edit and paste into the city article will work nicely. And then we can close this AfD with no further ado. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Including the table in the article on the City would be fine. It can be found and used. Since there are so few items, this could be good. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, there is nothing to merge. And a point of this AFD is have the article creator hear from other editors, not just from me, that they cannot put unsupported material into Wikipedia mainspace. Note, there is already statement in the Healdsburg article that "The Healdsburg Carnegie Library, now the Healdsburg Museum, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as is the Healdsburg Memorial Bridge," and there is no other useable content. The article creator is suggesting that a table in the edit history of the article (deleted by me from the article), that is not supported by sources, would be put into the Healdsburg article. And "List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California" is not a plausible text string that a reader looking for "Healdsburg" would accidentally type into a Wikipedia search bar. I now support outright deletion more strongly, rather than moving to Draftspace. If the article creator would agree to develop in Draftspace, then that would be okay by me and I would even help there. But so far they are not seeing the need to work in draftspace, and are suggesting they will make what amounts to an end-run around Wikipedia requirements, by putting it into Healdsburg article instead. Think of it: could every AFD be ended, by moving offending (unsupported) material to a different article? --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 19:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I further realize some or all of the Healdsburg items may also be included in a different list-article, that also needs to be deleted IMO, per other discussion at creator's Talk page. Expect to open AFD for that soon. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 00:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But that link goes just to a compilation of Wikipedia links/materials (invalid for Wikipedia to cite). --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support the move to draft space if quality sources can be found and incorporated. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Draftify per Doncram. desmay (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retain

The heart of the concerns about this article seemed to be that eight of the Designated Historic Buildings were documented only by their inclusions on two lists officially published by the City of Healdsburg. After much digging, the individual City Ordinances have been identified and referenced. See the talk page for the article. The City of Healdsburg is an official, incorporated city. It has a long 19th century heritage. It has established and renewed its historical preservation work. The buildings have been formally assigned recognition by the City Council. The list article seems like a good one.MikeVdP (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Doncram's arguments for delete, and only for delete (not merge / return to draft) — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forty Fest

Forty Fest (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 significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lack of coverage by reliable, independent sources, no evidence of notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn Eddie891 Talk Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 3)

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There are no references. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that 1 merge proposal and 4 separate AFDs regarding the same issue is too much. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed by searching for reliable sources and using the actual episodes as sources. Merging them with List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes would create a rather lengthy list. See also the merger proposal and related AFDs for season 4, season 5 and season 6. Recommend carrying this discussion out via the merger proposal. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 4)

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. The only references are to Amazon.com DVD pages. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 5)

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. The only reference is to an Amazon.com DVD page. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6)

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There are no references. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi T • C 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is articles for deletion and not articles for merge. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an articles for merge page I should post this to? I thought AfD was the place to find consensus on this type of thing without nuance, but I may be wrong. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For merging, there is instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will redirect my discussion there. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Hutchins

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NATHLETE. Honours won are local, and as a high school track and field athlete it sounds like this is WP:TOOSOON. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is precipitious. Despite very limited competition due to the coronavirus, Hutchins ran the fastest track time in the world last year in the Under-18 bracket. The next four women on the list, all Japanese, ran in stiff competition which tends to produce faster time. All were a year or more older than Hutchins. Number 6 on the list, was a fraction under 40 seconds slower than her. https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/middle-long/5000-metres/outdoor/women/u18/2020 Her cross country time for 5K was almost ten seconds better than the previous North American high school runners' best, one of many over 1,600 meters held by Katelyn Tuohy, whose 5K track record she also lowered. She's clearly in a class of her own. Activist (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably too soon to be notable, give her a year or two. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per others, this is too soon. Perhaps later. Springee (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I went to the AFD, it was clear that there wasn't an adequate understanding of the level of this athlete's performances. In a period of a few weeks, she demolished the record of 5K Cross country, and her 5K track record time was extraordinary for numerous reasons. They were set essentially in the absence of competition, remarkable in itself. These sorts of records have historically been recorded in open competition with adult champion racers, sometimes with pacers, to pull the record seekers through the early laps. Before creating the article, I checked the World U-20 championship results for 2016 and 2018 (2020 was canceled) and she would have been a medal contender (top three) in both years with the time she ran, though the top finishers were as much as 3 1/2 years older than she. No Americans in the races were remotely competitive. Though the two national championship high school races were not held due to the coronavirus, she clearly would have outclassed the field. This young woman is the Wilt Chamberlain, LeBron James or Kobe Bryant of high school distance runners. I've created and contributed to articles about distance runners whose performances dated back to the 1930s. Here's the Wikipedia list of NCAA 5K outdoors collegiate national championship times from 1982 through 2017. These featured African and European standouts as well, as much as seven or eight years older than she. Her time would have won 30 of those 35 races, (one just 0.37 seconds faster). It would have won recent Olympics! Because she's an exceptional scholar and volunteer, she is said to train minimally, less than 40 miles a week, NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships – Women's 5,000 meter run. Activist (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Competing at a notable level of the sport (ranked in top 100 last year) and passes general notability with multiple instances of specific, independent coverage of the athlete from Track and Field News and Runner's World (i.e. the biggest global outlets for the sport). For comparison, she ranked above Kim Conley in the 5000 m last year, who was the United States' representative in that event at the 2016 Olympics. This is not a case of too soon, Hutchins is already meeting the definition of world class athlete and garnering the requisite third party coverage that one would expect from a 16-year-old achieving that feat. SFB 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, global top 100 is nowhere near good enough to constitute "a notable level of the sport" per WP:SPORTCRIT. Top 25, maybe. If Activist knew track and field well, s/he would have known that Olympic races (and hence the winning times) are often not full-paced. I think Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias doesn't apply here either. Geschichte (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. USATF website is reliable. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Setting a United States national junior record and North American continental record as a youth athlete is a rare and notable achievement on its own. USA is not a small time player, there are a lot of notable athletes who were as much as three and a half years older who she bested. Coverage by the major media players of the sport, FloTrack, Milesplit, Runners World, Track and Field News means WP:SIGCOV. World Athletics took note and posted her profile. As Geschichte downplayed the world top 100, he should have noticed that list is so lopsided, only some 14 countries are represented in that 100. Lets also note her time would have placed 15th in the 2016 Olympic final. While making it through the tough American talent pool would be quite a feat, particularly for a youth level athlete, she currently would be on that track in the U.S. Olympic Trials. WP:TOOSOON is definitely not applicable. Trackinfo (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Striking duplicate !vote. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)) I should note that two of the "deletes" are by a long-time Wikistalker of mine who has shown virtually no interest in anything but post-1932 American Politics (AP2) articles for fourteen years on Wikipedia, and motor vehicles specifications articles, and by a new editor with no User or Talk page, who has been editing for three days, has nominated numerous articles for deletion and little else and has been cautioned by a veteran editor for such editing. I also added a Sports Illustrated article that singled Hutchins out for her soccer playing and a first and a second place in 3K age-group races when she was 11 years old, when she was running well under six minutes/mile! Activist (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New Era (WWE)

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

Out of the 24 sources on this article, only one uses the phrase "New Era" (and it's a primary source, which should be avoided). This article appears to largely be a WP:SYNTH collection of links used to back up a marketing catchphrase.

See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Secondary_sources_for_notability: Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. and, similarly, Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep.

The notability of this bit of WWE branding is not established anywhere, and the article has largely been cobbled together to justify one of WWE's buzzwords, one which hasn't been used in about 5 years.

Again, fails both WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Czello 22:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Term is used in multiple reliable secondary sources. A quick search found: WrestleView, a book from Simon & Schuster, ESPN, The Post and Courier, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, Philly Voice, CBS (again), a CBS affiliate, Fox Sports, Pro Wrestling Torch, and Figure Four/Wrestling Observer. Please perform WP:BEFORE search before nominating articles covered in so many reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus The Boston Globe 12/29/16 (John Cena: "I'm sick of this New Era B.S. It ain't the New Era. It's the My Time Is Now Era."), The Montgomery Advertiser 7/21/16 ("WWE Begins New Era with some Unexpected Victories"), The Montgomery Advertiser 5/29/16 ("This bold move will have major ramifications for all of WWE and exemplify the New Era..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles keep coming back to AfD but they aren't getting deleted. There's a reason for that. The article is in horrible shape, the fanpage tag is there for a good reason, but those aren't grounds for deletion. Gary's responses prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary gave several sources covering the New Era. I don't like the idea, since looks more like a promotional effort from WWE, but several sources prove the notability. Maybe, it's like PG Era, needs a lot of work. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there really is no substantial coverage of this alleged period of time. There's nothing to define this era. The prose currently in the article is either information that can be expanded upon within their own separate articles which already correctly exist (reception of Reigns, women's revolution, brand split), or expanded upon in the History of WWE article. ItsKesha (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is sufficiently notable and well-sourced and coverage per WP:RS, arguably the most prominent thing in the wrestling world today and should not be deleted based on personal views and WP:OR of individual editors. The new era that begun in 2016, is mentioned in multiple WP:PW/RS and many other mainstream accepted WP:RS including WWE themselves {even if you discount that as primary there are plenty more}: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and many other WP:PW/RS and other main stream WP:RS, I could go on and on. So please do not delete it based on the personal views of individual editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable" - None of the above sources contain any in-depth coverage, merely reporting and conjecture. 2) "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" - almost all the above sources are from the same two month period. 3) "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - this is definitely not true of this period of time. Also misses the criteria for WP:CFORK and WP:NTEMP, and is definitely WP:SYNTH judging by the proposed sources. ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as noted, it seems to be a largely made up "era". Actually just a part of the history of WWE and there is a section in the main article called "Second brand split (2016–present)" which is surely sufficient. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:SYNTH is a bogus claim. WWE has stated that the era exists, and many secondary sources have accepted this. Reporting what happens during an era is not synthesis. I've seen arguments in this string of era AfDs about "only sources that specifically use the phrasing "x era" can be used for this article. That's obviously untrue. The big events from 2016-present are fair game, as they fall within the era. To draw a parallel, if a policy or program was put forward during an era in American politics (New Deal, Great Society, etc.--or even the Great Depression, for that matter), it could be included because it falls within the era. To say that the source would need to specifically state "x was a policy enacted during the y era" makes no sense. WP:GNG has been met easily by the sources provided. There is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources. Even the ones mentioned above need to be considered, as an AfD is about potential, not just current state. WP:CFORK does not apply, as there is enough information to split off an article (we wouldn't say that the Great Society era should just be part of a "History of the United States" article). WP:NTEMP says the opposite of what ItsKesha believes it does. Notability, once established (as it was by the in-depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources) does not disappear--if it was notable then, it's notable now. Being a catchphrase/marketing strategy has nothing to do with notability. WP:GNG determines notability. As an example, see the Afd for Where's Herb?, a notoriously bad marketing campaign for Burger King. It was determined that there was enough in the sources for a separate article (which was subsequently expanded and passed a GA review). Marketing campaigns can be notable--even if it's for a "made up era". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However we already have a WWE article and a History of WWE article. Also having articles on short made-up marketing "eras" of WWE seems to me to be excessive. Per WP:N "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." In my view this topic should be merged in History of WWE (which in fact it already is). Nigej (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, we are allowed to combine articles. The fact that the article is only a little larger than the section at History of WWE persuades me that we don't need a separate article. Nigej (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be a merger based on your single opinion. The History of WWE article summarizes the most important factors of each era 1953-2021, ongoing, but the prominent eras like these merit their own "main article" to include more information that would make the History of WWE article too long to add on its own page. These seperate articles liek this and Attitude Era article and all gives more details and add value to WP:PW. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GaryColemanFan. I don't see how after all that has been said this could be considered SYNTH. Also: all of the 'eras' are topics of high importance in the scope of this project. Possibly, content should be moved from primary article to each 'era' main article (to unburden the primary article), but it can't be convincingly argued that a separate article isn't needed now, when it's counter to established norm. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:29, 11 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, with a solid majority of participating editors preferring to keep it, and the next largest group supporting a redirect to one of two potential redirect targets. Participants advocating keeping the article have articulate a somewhat more substantial basis for doing so in this case than has been done for other articles nominated for deletion on the same basis. BD2412 T 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Keith

Willard Keith (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. A Captain (United States) posthumously awarded a Navy Cross is not notable. His role as namesake of the USS Willard Keith (DD-775) is set out on that page. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the navy cross alone is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a guideline and it doesn't mandate that one of those 8 criteria be satisfied, it says that "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they" have one of those 8. It is not a requirement. Having a U.S. Navy Destroyer named after the person is an honor that seems to indicate that the individual is significantly WP:NOTABLE alone. I think that satisfies WP:GNG on its own but his life is covered in depth in 4 paragraphs here. The LA Times ran an in-depth story on him on December 14, 1942, an image of which is here and previously on November 29, 1942 [39] Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS. The Navy history is simply about his role as namesake of the ship, everyone who has a ship named after them gets a writeup like that. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And only notable people have US Navy ships named after them. You have the USN history site, LA Times x2, that's plenty for GNG. Unfortunately most sources will be from 1942 and would not be online. Toddst1 (talk)
So many ships were made in WWII that they named them after non-notable medal recipients. There is not SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don’t know the reliability of article, according to United States ship naming conventions, the U.S. Navy names destroyers after "Navy and Marine Corps heroes". I have never heard that destroyers were "named after non-notable medal recipients". Can you please provide a reliable source for that? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How the U.S. Navy names ships is not a determinant of notability on WP. Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may not be the determinant for notability, the fact that the Navy selected him as the namesake of a destroyer is a factor in establishing notability. My point is that destroyers are not "named after non-notable medal recipients", but rather someone the navy recognizes as a "hero". IMHO, that fact contributes to reaching the threshold of notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)
  • Delete or possibly redirect to the ship article noted above. Intothatdarkness 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Combination of being a recipient of the Navy Cross and being the namesake of a ship. His Navy Cross citation is significant, as it reflects that he had a decisive role in a battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how his role in the months-long battle of Guadalcanal was "decisive". Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guadalcanal was a campaign, which is a series of battles. He led a company of Marines in the hotly contested area of the Matanikau River. He personally initiated and led successive hand grenade and bayonet charges in the face of tremendous fire, which resulted in annihilation of the enemy from the area. It is actions like these which are decisive in a battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, his role in one small skirmish was not in any way decisive in determining the outcome of the campaign. The action is entirely unreferenced, which is hardly a sign of a major battle, unlike the earlier Actions along the Matanikau, nor does this supposedly significant action even rate a mention on the Guadalcanal campaign, so he fails #4 of WP:SOLDIER as he did not "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In his award citation, the results of his leadership and actions were referred to as having "annihilated" the enemy force as part of an "offensive" by the Marines. It was not during "a small skirmish", but rather during the Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November, and not the one you are referring to above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The engagement is entirely unreferenced on his page and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, so clearly not a "significant military event". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November is covered by an article on the battle and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, and thus can be considered a "significant military event" and not a "small skirmish". The fact that he is not mentioned by name seems an oversight IMHO, but the actions he was involved with are reflected in the article on the battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "small skirmish" the entire "offensive" was 3 days long with moderate losses. Most of the Matanikau Offensive is background and he isn't even mentioned. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I would classify an offensive involving 5,000 personnel with 471 killed in action as a "significant military event" as compared to a "small skirmish". This offensive involved coordinated air, artillery and naval action. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played a significant role in a major battle in WW2 and the recipient of the Navy Cross and Purple Heart. It should be enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above discussion, did not play "an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." sufficient to satisfy #4 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they did, and you're applying WP:SOLDIER way too strictly. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:41, 26 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 (☎) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USS Willard Keith (DD-775) as it seems to me that the consensus to do so is entirely reasonable. When everything significant that can be said about the subject is already going to be said in another article, there's no reason to have two articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the USS Willard Keith (DD-775) that was named after him. Google books search turns up a mention in a shipping journal to the ship commissioning , Google news/newspapers gives nothing. Of himself he doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Article is sourced and Soldier is just an essay. - wolf 01:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to the USS Willard Keith (DD-775). The article is absolutely not well sourced as one reference is about the person who designed the Willard Memorial Terrace at Stanford (so clearly not about Willard) and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (so about the ship). All that is left is a findagrave.com page which is not reliable or notability establishing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirecting belittles the subject. Admittedly there are few sources on the subject, but I have found some additional sites that appear to have located old newspaper clippings about his death. I will work to improve the quality of this article. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (1) WP:SOLDIER guideline does not require all of the 8, rather any one of them; (2) Agree with previous comments that selection for the Navy Cross, selection for having a ship named in one's honor, etc. are sufficient to establish nobility; (3) the number of people receiving the Navy Cross in no way reduces one's notability - consider the % of military members who receive this honor; (4) deleting an article because a person is on a "List of XXX" is not a reason - consider "List of US Presidents". — ERcheck (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale for #4 misinterprets what I said. The fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients on the list have no articles indicates the award does not establish notability. I in no way implied that it was a substitute for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments.... However, the fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients have no articles does not mean that they are not notable. It means that there is not (yet) an article written on the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the ship article. Meets neither WP:NSOLDIER or WP:GNG. Contrary to many comments on recent AfD's, having a ship named after you has zero to do with notability. They are political decisions, given as favors to certain politician's as appeasement to their constituencies. The fact that some people who are notable have ships named after them is a different story. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is sourced, and there is enough information to justify a stand-alone article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not dealing with the actual disagreement here. We already have something of a standing consensus that neither the Navy Cross as a decoration nor having a ship named after them satisfies independent notability. Also, I have to say that across all these discussions there is something of a failure to deal with the issue of making two copies of the same text. Instead, I keep seeing having one's own article is a prize to be won in the Notability Stakes. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons for receiving the Navy Cross. In his case, he had a leadership role that had decisive impact on a battle that was a significant military event, in addition to it being heroic. This has been addressed in this discussion. On a different but related note, IMHO, the fact that the Navy Cross is specifically mentioned here has led to a bias against this award. The Navy Cross is the highest award for the U.S. naval services, which includes the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps as well as Coast Guard and Merchant Marines when federalized, currently about 750,000 personnel, far larger than the total size of military forces of most countries. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He played a role in a small skirmish in the Matanikau Offensive and isn't even mentioned on that page, so clearly it and his role were not that important. The highest award for any U.S. service member is the Medal of Honor. The size of U.S. naval forces is completely irrelevant to anything. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and he doesn't satisfy that, there's his DANFS bio and two other sources of dubious value. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the size of US forces plays against these nominations, as I've noted before. There were hundreds of US destroyers and destroyer escorts; for a lot of these guys the only thing we know about them is that they were KIA, presumably valiantly. And that's the presenting problem: we can't write much more than a stub based on the medal award, a stub which is going to be included in the ship's article anyway. I just don't understand why people are insisting that that we have to repeat this material in multiple places where one will do just fine. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the ship article, USS Willard Keith (DD-775). Does not meet WP:BIO and notability is not inherited from the ship. In re: arguments that the subject meets WP:SOLDIER: a. the subject does not meet it; and b. SOLDIER is an essay, not even a presumption of notability as an SNG would be. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the clear consensus at WT:MILHIST#having a military ship named after you proves notability that military personnel who have a ship named after them are not automatically notable. If sources aren't available to establish notability independently, the subject of this article should be covered in the article on the ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The guideline WP:ANYBIO indicates that we should keep the topic as the subject received multiple "well-known and significant award or honor". And the policy WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "well-known and significant award or honor"? Consensus is that having a ship named after him does not confer notability: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability. If you think the page can be improved by editing then do it, don't just talk about it, but the sources just aren't there and so he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist, first the discussion you link to was only started on January 31st, so, 13 days after you started this AFD. You can hardly claim that a discussion that occurred 13 days after your nomination was a justification for your nomination.
  • Second, I think the question in the discussion you linked to was whether being the namesake of a vessel established notability -- ALL BY ITSELF. I think you know, full well, that absolutely no one has argued that, here, or anywhere else. It is a strawman argument.
  • Third, while wikipedia's definition of a consensus differs from the Parliamentary definition of a consensus I think almost everyone agrees that all genuine wikipedia consensuses (consensii?) are established through a civil and collegial discussion of all involved parties. At the time the discussion you linked to took place there were multiple AFD going on where multiple individuals had argued for considering being a namesake as a strong notability factor. No one placed a heads-up in those AFD that a related discussion was taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. So, please don't represent it as a bonafide consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says: " For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is being argued is that being argued is that having a large naval vessel named after you is a strong notability factor. As has been pointed out to you, in many AFD, is that hardly any of the BLP individuals we cover in standalone articles had their notability established by one single factor. WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC can establish notability with a single factor. But 99 of our BLP individuals have their notability establish by a cumulative assessment of all their notability factors. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Andrew Davidson did not clarify what "well-known and significant award or honor" was being referred to. Based on his argument on numerous similar AFD it was a fair assumption that he was referring to the ship being named for him. The fact that the ship discussion only began after I started this AFD is irrelevant, it arose from the Keep argument that Andrew added to most of the current AFDs. You seem to suggest that my deletion arguments must be frozen in time, without any account for new information, which isn't the case. It wasn't my responsibility to "place a heads-up", about the ship notability discussion, you can take that up with Dream Focus, but it is not an unreasonable assumption that people who participate in military deletion discussions also watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, anyway there is a clear consensus on the issue among the MilHist project, having a ship named after you does not establish notability. In relation to your BEFORE argument below, only one User has actually bothered adding any sources to the page since I AFDed it, but in my view those sources are largely about the battle he died in and still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS of him. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is proving to be somewhat contentious, I don't think there is a problem giving it a second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese White

Japanese White (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 sure how we are currently dealing with rabbit breeds, but based on the usual dog breed handling, not being recognized by any breeders association presumably indicates that we should not have an article about it? (I would also be obliged if someone could point me to a record of the current consensus) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a message on your talk page. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Altex rabbit, Armenian Marder, Bauscat rabbit, Blanc de Popielno, and more are not recognized by the ARBA or the BRC, and they are still pages. This article adds another rabbit breed, and in my opinion, should be kept. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Just. This is super tight but right now, based off the state of the article, I find the "delete" majority (as narrow as it is) to be more compelling. However, noting the comments in this discussion, this close does not prejudice re-creation at all (even less than normal), for a well-sourced article which demonstrates more notability than the deleted version does. If anyone wishes to undertake that task, and wants the article deleted and userfied, feel free to ask and I will happily oblige. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gringalet (film)

Gringalet (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)

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

PROD removed because "I would be *extremely* cautious about WP:BEFORE for a 1950s Argentine film on the Anglophone internet, myself (deprodding)". Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the article?

In any case, when I did my BEFORE, I checked that article. There is 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) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the article?" As the deprodder, I can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt I did not mean this. As you were told in other AfDs regarding deprodded 1950s Argentine films, this is not something where you can realistically expect most or all references to be available on the English-speaking internet, regardless of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, you transcluded the AfD incorrectly, so I've fixed that for you. Hope that's fine.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the transclusion. As for my reasoning, I don't necessarily expect articles of this age to have reviews online, but even in the Spanish article the citations listed fail WP:NFILM. There is a book listed, which the "reviews" aren't attributed to (they are just there in the article with no book/newspaper attributed to them so that someone can verify if they had a copy of the book/newspaper). Anyone can question the notability of an article when it appears to fail inclusion guidelines, which I have. And, if anyone disagrees, that is why we have the discussion, so they can provide the proof of notability...whether in the discussion or adding to the article. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. We need reliable sources, which IMDb is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this seriously a thing? There is nothing technically notable about this other than it was a film. I get it that it's from the 1950's but there's still no context or anything explaining how notable this is (IMDb is NOT reliable since its content is user generated). Kline | vroom vroom 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious because I so often see this comment in AfDs (and I don't know that it is relevant here because this article doesn't have anything from IMDb)--have you tried to have something edited on IMDb in recent years? It may be "user-generated", but it is more reliable than Wikipedia. IMDb editors (not IMDb users) require attachments from high quality and often contemporary sources that spell things out exactly one way. This process takes days or weeks; changes aren't instantaneous, and often they are never made. There are some changes I'll never be able to get done, even with citations, because of the lofty standards IMDb pages have to meet. Maybe it wasn't always like that, but it is now. This "user-generated" business I read all the time. How many Wikipedia editors have tried to get changes made on IMDb? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an external link, I'm fine with that, but if it cites it, especially as the only source, it's gonna go. Have you read WP:IMDB?? Kline | vroom vroom 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The non-answer answers my question that you haven't directly, and I'll answer yours with "yes" and again that that does not apply to this article as it isn't cited here and I've added sourcing. So funny to see IMDb repeatedly brought up in discussions where IMDb isn't an issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no assertion that the article passes any WP:NFILM criteria, and the sourcing quite clearly fails the GNG. Several diligent searches have done nothing to change that, and so the article must be deleted. If there really are Spanish-language sources, then someone should be able to find them. But until then, we have nothing but speculation about notability, which cannot save the article. I'm glad to reëvaluate if new sources come to light. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure that the film existed but without any evidence of notability, we can't really justify keeping it. No deletion is irreversible so, if sources are ever found, this can always be restored. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets NFILM. Reviewed in Variety... in our very own language folks, yes. "Pictures: Gringalet." Variety (Archive: 1905-2000); Los Angeles Vol. 216, Iss. 8, (Oct 21, 1959): 23. Via Proquest. This and the reviews excerpted on the Spanish language WP article, which seem to come from: Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2001). Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) pág. 256/7. Buenos Aires, Editorial Corregidor. ISBN 950-05-0896-6, which is mentioned on many Argentine film articles, suffice. I echo the sentiments of the prod declined. Caution, care, thoroughness is important. It's best to look beyond the paywalls for films of this age--even U.S. films--Googling may be what is called for in BEFORE, but it causes Wikipedia to fall short of what it can be. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above such as Variety and Spanish sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus could be shifting per the last two !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak) The subject is a mainstream Argentinian production of 1959, but the film fails the fairly strict criteria of WP:NFILM. It could pass GNG based on the Variety review, but then NFILM would never have to be applied, and would be rendered defunct; I don't think that would work in general. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:21, 11 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. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Johnson (theatre-maker/musician)

Jim Johnson (theatre-maker/musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References on this page are passing mentions, not significant coverage, so I don't think the article meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since 2013. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is nowhere near enough to show notability. Based on the user name and very focused actions of the article creator, I have to wonder if this article was started as an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). Consensus is that the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore is not considered notable by the majority of editors. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1016

NGC 1016 (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 galaxy. Source search returns only the typical trivial sources and other mentions in large tables. Following convention of previous NGC object deletion discussions, the article should be redirected to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). I am nominating for deletion since it appears that Felix558 has contested my redirect. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I do not see any reason to delete page NGC 1016. It gives main data and descriptions about this celestial body, and it even shows 2 pictures of this galaxy, so I do not see why this page should be singled out and deleted. What is there against policies and guidelines of Wikipedia?

This astronomical object also meets the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article (as described here: Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Criteria), because it is "listed in a catalogue of high historical importance or a catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". This object is listed in the famous New General Catalogue.

I really can not see any logic in the initiative started by Sam-2727 to delete this article and replace it with a plain redirect.

Felix558 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Note: Moved from talk page of deletion discussion Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Felix558, apologies, I should've been clearer in my reasoning here. The NGC catalog used to be thought of as a catalog of high historical importance. Indeed, when you created this article, it was listed explicitly as such on WP:NASTRO. However, since then, it has been determined that although the NGC catalog might be of high historical importance, it is simply too large to expect an article for every object (see this discussion). While some NGC objects might meet the general criteria (see WP:Notability), i.e. having three or more independent, reliable sources that mention the object significantly, some won't. In this case, I don't believe the object in question meets these criteria, although I would withdraw my nomination for deletion if you provide such sources. The reason I "single out" your article is because I've been going through the list of NGC objects slowly and culling the ones that I don't believe are notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion. You were right that there are way more objects in the NGC catalogue than in the Messier catalogue. On the other hand there are countless astronomical objects in the observable Universe, and only about 7000 of them were selected and included in the New General Catalogue - that should make all of them notable, in my opinion. More importantly, we also have this in the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article: "Catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". What about that? Astronomical object from the NGC catalogue are frequent targets for amateur astronomers. I also found multiple websites where descriptions of observations / photographs of NGC 1016 made by amateur astronomers can be seen. Felix558 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the catalog as a whole is of high amateur interest, as are select objects, individual objects in the catalog aren't necessarily of high amateur interest. Simple pictures of the object aren't indicative of high amateur interest I believe. That would dictate "normal" amateur interest. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: well it's the brightest member of the NGC 1016 galaxy group. Unfortunately the group itself is not particularly significant. All I can find for this galaxy are data entries and a small blurb in a book;[40] no discussion or dedicated studies. By itself it's not very notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, if nobody shows up to reinforce my viewpoint here, then I agree with the deletion (since my viewpoint is currently in the minority). Felix558 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is decription, the type of galaxy is mentioned. I do not see why this article should be deleted. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore to redirect The pictures and the discovery info are the only things that aren't already in the table. It wouldn't be the end of the world to keep this, but there's no claim to general notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is our policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, there is no practical limit to the number of articles. We therefore have no need of a cull of such historical discoveries. The page in question seems fine and has a nice picture. Merging it into a long and bloated list would be less practical and so we should leave well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, that reasoning goes against past consensus on astronomy object articles. Another discussion on this is welcome, but we decided that these objects should be removed from the astronomy notability criteria. The reasoning being that there are probably tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of astronomy objects that could rise to this level of notability. See WP:NASTRO: In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. This object does not rise to the level fo WP:GNG, nor does it meet any of the specific criteria at WP:NASTRO. The NGC catalog, due to its large size and to be honest, fairly careless addition of objects, doesn't meet the WP:NASTRO requirements of "high historic importance" (the catalog as a whole is of historical interest as are some individual objects in it, but not every individual object). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a broader view that SNGs are problematic as they tend to represent local consensus rather than the general readership. The NGC is highly reputable and respectable. It only contains about 8,000 objects which is tiny compared to the total number out there which is literally astronomical. We have over six million articles and so this is a negligible increment. And, as the page already exists, where is the added value in making it disappear? It's a nonsense and our policies do not support it. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). There's no argument for why this galaxy should be notable, either in the article or in this discussion. We don't keep articles just because there's no lack of space, we keep articles because they're notable. This is just one out of thousands of galaxies in the sky, with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically. There's not even any information to write about it in the article, other than to note its early discovery. If anybody cares about that it can be added as a footnote in the list. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think it would be wrong to delete this article. It was not only included in the famous NGC catalog, it was also included in several scientific stuides/papers. Tercer, you wrote "with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically", but that is not correct. For example, this scientific paper mentions this galaxy specifically on page 7 and in the tables. This published paper is also mentioning it, since the NGC 1016 was analyzed in that research. NGC 1016 was also included in this published paper, and also in this. The book "Proceedings of the 4th Cosmic Physics Conference" is mentioning this galaxy on page 493. Felix558 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out several times, merely being included in the NGC catalog doesn't make an object notable. See the discussion here. Also, per WP:NASTRO being mentioned in a huge table of astronomical objects doesn't make an object notable. The paper needs to actually discuss the object. Your first reference has NGC 1016 only in tables, and in a trivial mention of its properties in the text. Not enough. I can't open your second reference. Your third reference only has NGC 1016 as an entry in a table. Not enough. Your fourth reference only has it as entries in tables, and a trivial mention in the text. Not enough. The mention in the book is also completely trivial. The bottom line is, people don't care about this galaxy specifically, and there just isn't anything to write about other than its basic properties. Tercer (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect NGC objects are not automatically notable and need more coverage than passing listings. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Moslehi

Roxana Moslehi (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 page does not contain any external sources that is not a peer-reviewed article by the same scholar. There seems to be no notability according to WP:PROF. RoxMosDel (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She hasn't achieved anything beyond what a normal scientist in her field would do. The "awards" she has aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She has some highly-cited research, including first-authored papers with Google Scholar citation counts 325, 163, 59, 46, ... and several others with even more citations on which she was not first author. The article is puffed up with minor and non-notable accomplishments and badly-sourced evaluations of her work, and it could use being severely trimmed back, but I think this is enough for a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. I note also that the nominator is a WP:SPA whose login (judging from its name) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of hiding the identity of a more-experienced editor (one who at least is familiar with our academic notability guidelines, not true of most new editors); to me that looks like a likely case of WP:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. The number of citations, particularly considering how variable the ranges are from field to field has never been a criterion for notability inside/outside of Wikipedia. And yes, you are right, I'm an experienced user and for obvious reasons decided to make this suggestion using a temporary username, which is not against policies. But please let's focus on the topic of the discussion and not my identity. Please also note nomination for deletion is not vandalism (per definition of badhand)RoxMosDel (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of RoxMosDel does appear to be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so it is against policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is not correct. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses. RoxMosDel (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per David Eppstein. I'm also not sure if the COI tag on the page is actually justified. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So my new method of analyzing notability in a way that normalizes to subfield is to look at a few credential parameters in both the subject and their coauthors using Scopus. This allows people in very low-cited topics a better chance of gaining NPROF C1, and mediates the appearance of high citation counts for people who publish in extremely high-citation/publication subfields. I look at the subject's and their coauthors' current professional position, PhD graduation year, total number of citing documents (slightly different from total cites), number of publications, h-index, and cite count of highest-cited paper overall, as first author, and as senior (last) author. I'll fill in the position and PhD year at a later point, but here are Dr. Moslehi's coauthors from her 3 highest-cited papers (1, 2, 3), her most recent paper (3), highest-cited first-author paper (4), and highest-cited last-author paper (5). I've bolded the people with much better credentials and italicized those who are comparably-credentialed.
author metrics
Caption text
Name Professional position PhD grad year Total citing docs # Publications h-index Overall highest cite Highest first-author cite Highest senior-author cite
Roxana Moslehi assoc. prof, SUNY Albany 2000 2421 43 20 559 254 32
Steven Narod TBD TBD 36799 832 120 4916 660 2544
Harvey Risch TBD TBD 15878 172 69 2475 633 633
Anne Dørum TBD TBD 2482 60 22 886 102 46
Susan Neuhausen Morris & Horowitz Families Professor, City of Hope TBD 20919 366 84 4916 242 187
Hakan Olsson TBD TBD 16918 274 63 2475 149 309
Diane Provencher TBD TBD 8662 231 48 1067 120 217
Paolo Radice TBD TBD 13590 320 65 2475 35 171
Gareth Evans Professor? 1992? (MD) 29565 623 110 2475 729 311
Susan Bishop TBD TBD 559 1 1 559 - -
Jean Brunet TBD TBD 3505 45 28 559 113 294
Bruce Ponder Emeritus prof., Cambridge 1978 35021 482 117 2717 461 1621
JGM Klijn TBD TBD 30269 346 91 3601 379 1313
Ilana Cass TBD TBD 2687 71 24 380 380 167
Rae Lynn Baldwin TBD TBD 2365 38 26 380 271 82
Taz Varkey TBD TBD 448 2 2 380 - -
Beth Karlan TBD TBD 26951 471 92 4205 165 380
Ellen Warner TBD TBD 9367 182 42 2475 900 119
William Foulkes TBD TBD 22333 617 94 1948 1948 660
Pamela Goodwin TBD TBD 12538 193 62 1795 697 338
Wendy Meschino TBD TBD 5353 114 37 900 10 53
John Blondal TBD TBD 609 8 7 313 29 -
Colleen Paterson TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Hilmi Ozcelik TBD TBD 5344 117 43 755 186 130
Paul Goss TBD TBD 19363 304 74 1795 1580 786
Diane Allingham-Hawkins TBD TBD 1135 23 10 376 376 30
Nancy Hamel TBD TBD 3229 75 31 313 64 -
Lisa Di Prospero TBD TBD 766 4 4 386 74 -
Velita Contiga TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Corrine Serruya TBD TBD 530 4 4 313 - -
Meri Klein TBD TBD 430 2 2 313 - -
Joanne Honeyford TBD TBD 429 6 4 313 - -
Alexander Liede TBD TBD 1973 65 22 319 319 31
Gord Glendon TBD TBD 5268 137 43 716 3 15
Cristy Stagnar TBD TBD 105 9 4 56 - -
Sneha Srinivasan TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
Pawel Radziszowski TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
David Carpenter prof., SUNY Albany 1964 31611 474 66 4142 269 238
Igor Kuznetsov TBD TBD 431 24 10 149 118 149
Michael McDuffie TBD TBD 33 2 1 32 - 1
William Chu TBD TBD 873 10 10 254 28 -
David Fishman TBD TBD 10207 150 54 2734 207 192
Abbie Fields TBD TBD 1401 45 20 254 69 144
David Smotkin TBD TBD 1399 23 16 483 483 17
Yehuda Ben-David TBD TBD 674 25 11 254 24 -
From these numbers, it appears her subfield has exceptionally high publication rates and citations. Among all her coauthors, including those who are undergrads with 1 paper, the (median, average, Dr. Moslehi; italicized when comparable, bold when much higher) for each of the parameters is: total citing docs: (2482, 8557, 2421); total pubs: (60, 155, 43); h-index: (24, 37, 20); citation of highest cited papers: overall: (559, 1268, 559), first-author: (118, 268, 254), last-author: (53, 249, 32). Among coauthors with 10 or more pubs: (7008, 11892, 2421); (144, 217, 43); (43, 51, 20); (984, 1680, 559); (248, 374, 254); (169, 350, 32). Considering only NPROF C1, based on these metrics, I would lean towards delete (not a !vote), as she does not appear to be highly cited in her field. If she has considerable independent media references she might just meet other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lainx, do you consider every professor in any field who has 2–3000 citations notable? I've only recently started voting in academic AfDs, but from assessing citation counts and h-indices using Scopus it's become very clear that subfields differ enormously in the typical values for those metrics. For example, in pure math 250 citing docs and an h-index of 9 can be notable, but there are also fields where the average post-doc with 5+ years working can have like 3000 citations and an h-index of 25. Surely different criteria should be used depending on the subfield? JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per David Eppstein"s coment.Fatzaof (talk) 14:02, 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 speedy deleted per G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W'at Abowt Us

W'at Abowt Us (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; could not find any independent or reliable coverage at all in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_26&oldid=1003121553"