Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:43, 7 February 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 06	February 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Göztepe İhsan Kurşunoğlu Anadolu Lisesi

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

Notablity Robingunes (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources in article, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Fails GNG, ORGCRIT for corp, nothing in the article relates to NBUILD. There are lots of directory listings, and a student that found fame, but neither of these show notability for the subject. This is a normal school, nothing notable. If someone finds an alternative search term, please ping me. No objection to a redirect if a consensus target is agreed. // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ture i Berg

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

I couldn't find anything about this artist. I believe for now he fails the notability guidelines - there's no significant coverage. If someone adds the appropriate sources to prove the subject is notable, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently Per Dahlström discusses Ture Alfredsson in his doctoral dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, from 2002. I've written to Dahlström to ask if there's any way to get an electronic copy, as well as asked my library to get it for me through an interlibrary loan. /Julle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to indicate that he is anything more than a locally known folk artist. His initial situation seems similar to some artists who were:"discovered" by the Souls Grown Deep Foundation. However, the notable SGD artists had their work collected by major museums-- and written about in books, magazines and newspapers. This artist has next to no coverage, no museums and no reviews. There is nothing on the Swedish Wikipedia either.Possibly (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is also something about him in Olle Hessle, Okända mästare, skulptur på egna vägar (2008). He is mentioned in a page on local curiosities in Årjäng here. ~~How about selectively merging this to the Årjäng Municipality article (i.e. mentioning him there with two or three sentences) and redirecting this article there?~~ --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on Julle's checking of sources. --Hegvald (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for self-taught artists and folk artists, however, this one is not notable. There are tens of thousands of such artists throughout the world, and we can't have an article on all of them. In this case, there just is not the kind of significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to pass WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Julles comment and source available in the article. I think this is just within the threshold for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now read Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt (Dahlström, 2002) as well as Dahlström's short chapter on Alfredsson in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar (2008, ed. Olle Nessle) and expanded the article somewhat as well as added them to support existing statements. I'm guessing the text on Alfredsson in En hôger Sellere which was the one source in the article earlier depends a lot on Dahlström, it seems to say very similar things. Additiontally, sv:Kerstin Högstrand wrote an article about Alfredsson in Värmländsk kultur 16:4, 1995, "Mannen med tidspistolen : om bonden, snickaren och skulptören Ture Alfredsson, Sillerud", which I don't have access to right now. In total, this means that we have a) a number of good, reliable sources from more than person, b) that the texts focus on Alfredsson specifically, at length – he's not merely mentioned in passing – and c) that they cover a significant span of time: He died in 1984, yet these texts are written between 1995 and 2011, signifying enduring interest in his life and art. Having looked into this, I'd say he passes WP:GNG; Alfredsson seems to have become, to some degree, a symbol of this kind of art. /Julle (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle: how long, approximately, would you say these texts are? Possibly (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know we do not go by other stuff here, but if one wants to see what an article for a notable rural folk artist looks like, see Maud Lewis. There is no need there to scour the attic for sourcing as is being done here. Possibly (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight pages on Alfredsson in Dahlström's dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, four in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar, five in Högstrand's article in Värmländsk kultur. I've no access to En hôger Sellere, the book which this article was based on before I did my additions, so I don't know how long that text is.

"Several books, plays and films have since been produced about her", says the article on Maud Lewis. This is true for a very small minority of our biographies: it's not our threshold for inclusion, nor do I think it should be: we build articles on less. /Julle (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle (AGF on the existence of these sources) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a clearer consensus based on the new sources mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – in my view the sources described by Julle are sufficient to pass GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage, and not just mentions, in multiple sources as brought out by Julle above, article has been improved to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cralosophus

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

Possible hoax? I can't find anything about this animal and "Cralosophus jackforsteriensis" returns zero results across every search engine that I have tried. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - taxonomy isn't a specialty of mine, but I can find no references which support this. If valid refs can be shown, then ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone finds something to support this. Mccapra (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- certainly has hoax vibes. If it's real, it's a member of an inherently notable category, but neither my nor the nominator's search can find anything for that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of citations doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of sources or any record of a description. Can't quite figure out what the author is up to - on the one hand, valid articles on newly described species [1] - on the other hand, random addition of 2021 "synonyms" for common species [2]... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, and "jackforsteriensis" is suspect.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lol, it does seem to be a hoax. @Theinsectencyclopedia: do you have anything to say about it? Tercer (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:13, 13 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Jones

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

This article fails NSPORT and GNG. Tagged for notability since 2018.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not appear in a regular season game with either team or even make the final roster, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet GNG Tatupiplu'^talk 12:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion makes no sense. Sandstein 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon (sport)

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

This page is an un-referenced and non-notable page relating to people getting hit in the head with a ball. Additionally, as per WP:NAD, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clifton9 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - term used in other sports too in an article that has a source.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and only one external link. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that this falls under WP:NAD. Also, SportsDictionary.com is 404/suspended. UPDATE: I have not found this term either in Wiktionary nor in a basic Google search. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:08, 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.

Common enough term, but fails the if its not American, it doesn't exist test. Hardly worth an article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Hurwitz

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable musician. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Only reasonable one is a short Variety piece but one is not enough. Claims a hit on the Hot Singles Chart but a search for that came up empty. Soft delete restoration. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates the terms of use. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 9 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) 12:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Papageorgiou

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

This was initially a PROD by User:Geschichte due to WP:NFOOTBALL failure. It was then removed with the comment According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

Putting NFOOTBALL to one side, I am struggling to find anything to prove that Papageorgiou can pass WP:GNG. All the sources cited are primary and a WP:BEFORE search reveals little better. The best two sources that I could find were this and this, neither of which we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thousands of women can be notable in this sport, but not Australian league players with very few games. Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By that argument, we should make an article for every player to have played in Andorra's Primera Divisió as it would be racist not to. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:59, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Taylor (disambiguation)

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

A disambiguation page is not required: the primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD was reverted by @Nigej: with edit summary: rm PROD. see WP:ONEOTHER. In my view "there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future". WP:ONEOTHER goes on to say "it may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page." The page has been tagged for 4 months during which time no other uses have come to light. (Pages like this are routinely subject to PROD and deleted as uncontroversial.) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not require a page on this wiki. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough here for a disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hatnote should be sufficient for this case (see WP:HATCHEAP). IMO, DAB pages should have at least 3 or more articles listed in them. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 19:55, 13 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross International

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

A charity with ??? notability. Generic name impedes the search for sources, leading to red herrings and other organizations that don't seem to be related to this one. The original article author (circa 2009) clearly SPA, also redirected their user name to this article for some reason? Pretty sure this was made as advertising, and there hasn't been enough interest or sourcing to actually improve it over the years. If anyone has some practical advice to improve this article, I'd be happy to fix it up, but if TNT is required, I ought to call in the pros. Estheim (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell whether or not this is notable. It claims to have 46 projects in 12 countries, which might be sufficient to make it notable. On the other hand, there are no outgoing links and the organisation's website is very non-specific as to what it is doing. I would be much happier if there were an indication of turnover or something like that to demonstrate its size. If large, it probably would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate international charity, not a commercial/spam operation. Just look at their YouTube channel and their excellent Charity Navigator and BBB ratings. The Wikidata page's Identifiers has more useful info. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 22 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 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Wolfson

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Comments from him are are not coverage about him. Sourced to primary. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, comments about him (and references) do not support notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to notable as a lawyer, and the coverage of his role as an activist falls far short of the multiple significant sources in independent, reliable secondary sources. It is less than clear that any of the sources used are fully independent of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 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 no consensus. The best arguments are from Bearcat and Beccaynr, who are diametrically opposed to each other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Devine

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

Non notable individual. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Comments form her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Examination of references strongly indicates this article meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which references specifically? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references present here do not "strongly" indicate that the article meets GNG. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and video clips of her speaking — and the few sources that are actually to real notability-supporting media are not coverage about her, but coverage which merely namechecks her as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is somebody or something else. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG: the sources have to be media coverage which has her as its subject, not just any page you can find on the web that happens to have her name in it. The notability test is not "she did stuff", it's "she got media coverage about the stuff she did" — and none of the sources here are showing that she's passed that test. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My initial research shows Devine has been recognized as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources over time, e.g. Montreal Gazette 2009, CTV News 2011, CTV News 2014, The Globe and Mail 2015, BBC News 2016, Global News 2016, Global News 2016, so there appears to be sufficient coverage of Devine as an expert per WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the essay WP:INTERVIEW, which reasons, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These additional sources cover Devine's advocacy related to the Montreal and Quebec 'pit-bull bans': Global News 2016, TODAY 2017 (also includes discussion of litigation), Toronto Star 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC) (and The Washinton Post, 2016) Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for sources that are about her, not sources that happen to mention or quote her in the process of being about something or somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC appears to anticipate that notability can be derived from extensive coverage over time in multiple independent and reliable sources, and the reasoning of the WP:INTERVIEW essay seems to further support this, particularly when sources quote Devine as an expert, which is a form of commentary about Devine. There appears to be a mix of reporting about Devine's work and her expert opinions; but there is so much coverage, I have asked for assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron to help incorporate and organize the sources, generally help with article cleanup, and assist with French translation if possible. None of the sources that I have reviewed at this point seem to happen to mention Devine as a trivial detail, but instead seek her expert opinion and/or discuss her professional work in the context of the subject being reported, which seems to be reporting about her that supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. For a source to support her notability, she has to be the thing that is getting talked about in that source — getting quoted for soundbite about some other subject is not support for her notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devine is an animal law expert and an attorney, who has been covered extensively by independent and reliable sources due to her expertise and professional work; per GreenC, there are over 500 sources to sort through, and per WP:NEXIST, "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I have listed multiple examples of sources that offer secondary commentary 'about' Devine as an expert by seeking her expertise, not a "soundbite," which supports her notability as an expert, and I have listed examples that discuss her professional work, which is not "some other subject" in the articles, and supports the notability of her professional work; furthermore, additional sources clearly seem likely to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and BASIC. She has been involved in important legislation, is a leading expert in Quebec, has received international coverage. There are over 500 sources listed in a Google News search where reliable sources have sought her out and/or quoted her. Influential and leading expert. GNG does not limit to biographical-oriented sources only (which would be arbitrary), rather it is "significant coverage" and this amount and type of coverage is a significant signal of notability. -- GreenC 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what GreenC just said. I was not convinced before, thinking she only mentioned as the spokesperson for an organization, but they are quoting her words, considering her an expert in her field, so she is notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. This is an example of "the depth of coverage in any given source" not being substantial but "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."--User:Namiba 14:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Namiba and BASIC. She is notable.Jacwizy (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Per Bearcat, many references do not meet WP:RS. The many independent, secondary sources that merely mention the subject are not about the subject, and do not constitute 'significant coverage' as required by WP:BASIC. Bigpencils (talk) 06:52, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Long

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

I have searched and haven't found any sources for this person. The only source listed for the article is admittedly self-published. All the evidence I can find is that Long was a minor player in the American Revolution. Reducing this mess of an article to a stub would not fix these fundamental flaws. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG no SIGCOV in multiple RS, family geneology project created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many unreferenced statements in this article. As per above, there is no SIGCOV. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a NN soldier and United Empire Loyalist, whose career differs little from hundreds or even thousands of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 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. Daniel (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Yap

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

UPE promotion of non notable business woman. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Bombarded with many sources bu they are largely a mix of minor mentions, primary, PR, routine announcements and listings. None of the "awards" are major. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, delete, of no consequence. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a lot of the links are dead. A lot of other links are simply PR, public relations. No depth for GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 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 draftify to Draft:Nikapotha Chandrajothi Anunayaka Thero. The primary author, DIMI GUNASEKARA, is encouraged to use the articles for creation process to allow other experienced editors to review the article when it is brought up to a more encyclopedic standard, and to consider reaching out to editors from WikiProject Sri Lanka or WikiProject Buddhism for help developing the article. — The Earwig (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikapotha Chandrajothi Anunayaka Thero

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

BLP of an apparently senior figure in Sri Lankan Buddhism. The article consists mostly of a great many transliterated Sri Lankan terms, making it very hard for the general reader to know what his role is, what authority he holds, or much else about him. The sources seem to be mostly closely affiliated with organisations he runs or works for. Notability is therefore not established. Mccapra (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is the second highest Buddhist monk in a Buddhist nation, Sri Lanka. The President, Prime Minister and the cabinet are all Buddhists. Recently the UNHCR criticised them for cremations of Muslims in the disposal of bodies from the Covid-19 pandemic. He is Head of the Police Chaplains and advisor to the Education Department on transmission of Buddhist values to schoolchildren. Oh, User:Mccapra, may you know the Shunyata for putting this up for deletion. Infobox should not have sinhala text; this is badhaka, a mortal sin. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok the first three sentences in your comment have no bearing on whether or not this person is notable. However knowing that “he is Head of the Police Chaplains and advisor to the Education Department on transmission of Buddhist values to schoolchildren” is useful and I could not have figured that out from the impenetrable text of the article. Can you point to multiple reliable independent sources that would demonstrate that this article should be kept?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all of you, I would first like to thank all of you for criticising and commenting on my very first article.Being a buddhist I find that there is lack of info on the subject and wanted to expand it. I will edit and make the article more understandable to English speaking personnel. Please kindly excuse my mistakes and let me know of any changes I need to do.I m new to wikipedia and am working hard to understand how things work,thank you for your efforts in advance and we ll work together in trying to fix this article..

DIMI GUNASEKARA (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi @DIMI GUNASEKARA: if you still want to work on the article I suggest it should be Draftified to allow you the necessary time. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with Mccapra that the article be moved to a draft and that DIMI GUNASEKARA then contact some of the active Sri lankan editors to assist in bringing this article to encyclopedic standards. At the moment it appears to be more of a WP:RESUME than a Wikipedia article. Dan arndt (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support draftify. Spudlace (talk) 03:35, 27 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) 10:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Science (company)

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

Article about a company that produces educational materials. The main claim to significance is that its materials are used in most US elementary schools, but I can only find this claim on their own website. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there was a reference to the Elementary School curriculum in the 50 states, this article could be saved. As it is, everything stands alone sans notability. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a pretty run of the company that clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to a lack of notability. Plus, there's obvious COI editing issues. So, I think deleting the article is the best thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and is covered in a variety of reliable sources like Tech Crunch, University of Michigan, and Venture Beat.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is not the appropriate guideline for companies/organizations - NCORP is appropriate and is stricter than GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Oinuma

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

BLP of a Japanese-Filipina model who came eighth in a Big Brother series and has done some other early-career stuff, none of which looks notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are insufficient to meet GNG. This is really a case of WP:TOOSOON for this starlet. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good possibility, since she did get some media attention and is mentioned in the Pinoy Big Brother: Otso article. I also would accept deletion per arguments of nominator. Polyglot Researcher (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few more reliable sources in the article. Her TV roles seem significant, including 3 main TV roles. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes NACTOR as she has multiple significant roles. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. Also, links to WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article passes both. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article must have many information including on about her early life before her stardom in Philippine showbiz. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:54, 20 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, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see more refs have been added but they’re all just passing mentions of her name in cast lists. Where is the in-depth coverage in multiple sources? She’s verifiably an actress and appeared on Big Brother. That’s really all we’ve got. Mccapra (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow scrutiny of sources added since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She received significant coverage from at least three different secondary sources: Manila Standart, ABS and Cand Mag. I have doubts about her relevance in PBB: Otso, but I have no doubts that the article meets WP: GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is notable. She has played main roles in multiple films and television series, so meets WP:NACTOR and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Daniel (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Yanong

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

BLP of a Filipina model who doesn’t seem notable to me. She came third in a Big Brother series and has done some other in screen work but nothing that looks significant to me. I’m not sure how reliable some of the sources are either. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are two references that might lend notability. Nonetheless, this is another case of WP:TOOSOON for this starlet. Insufficient references to meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso: Barely any acting stint aside from being a VJ of Myx. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Not notable yet. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:33, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1992–93

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are articles on touring sides for each cricket season. I don't have access to news archives but there would almost certainly be coverage of Pakistan's tour of Australia at that time in national newspapers (there always is), so the claim of non-notability is simply not true. Another option which would be a valid alternative to deletion would be a merge or redirect to 1992–1993 Australian cricket season but that article currently doesn't exist. So as not to undo the good work of cricket editors here I see why this article can't be kept pending that being created. Again, another instance where deletion is a lazy option. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And again, I'll say what I said on other similar nominations. We have a complete series of articles on the official cricket tours, and because there is a complete series, readers (remember them?) can find their way around easily. What is the encyclopaedic merit in seeking to destroy that? Johnlp (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series which is what should have been done in 2007 when this article was created. This was not a tour in any traditional sense of the word, but a tournament. The warm up games warrant a sentence, at best, in the tai-series article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series. Matches on this trip were organised around this tournament. Does not meet criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a clear consensus on to keep or to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's likely that sources can be found to expand article. Otherwise merge with 1992-93 Australian Tri-Series. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again relisted to enable a consensus regarding outcome to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1992–93 Australian Tri-Series as per Blue Square Thing, above. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:50, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nofel Izz

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

Paid promotional article by several declared editors. Earlier versions were even worse--see the talk page--but there is not enough fundamental material to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barren. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one link is possibly notable. Remainder are barren or dead. I hope his oxygen mask saves him. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entrepreneurs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but the five footnotes here aren't solid enough to get him over WP:GNG: one's an unrecoverable dead link, one's an unreliable WordPress blog, and it's not at all clear that once those two are discounted, the remaining three are enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 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 merge to Kansas State University#Campus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens Hall

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

This article concerns a building that houses academic departments at Kansas State University. The article cites no sources and BEFORE searches return only a small number of articles in Kansas State University's student-run newspaper that even mention the building. Thus, there is no evidence of "significant coverage" that would satisfy GNG and, IMHO, it should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only primary sources, meaning it fails GNG, and the hall is only mentioned in a caption on the Kansas State University page, making a redirect useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above, search brings primary sources only. A lot of returns on Charles Dickens, not Dickens Hall. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable building, though I don't necessarily oppose a redirect if others want it. Smartyllama (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kansas State University#Campus. It only takes 2 minutes to add it's single paragraph to the main article's relevant section. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the target suggested by History DMZ. Either option seems fine. Just as long as the article doesn't stay as is. Since Dickens Hall is clearly not notable enough on it's own to warrant one and it's mentioned in the merge target anyway. So, there might as well be information about it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 12 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 posting to Wikiprojects and 2nd relist, few new comments. Fairly detailed, policy and source-grounded keep rationale which was supported offset by some rather basic delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomtown, Kentucky

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

Another one that after further research does not appear to be notable. The GNIS entry, which is not linked but is located here, is sourced to Rennick. Not all of the Rennick-sourced entries are spurious (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barebone, Kentucky, but many have proven to be so. Topos show two homes and a couple non-residence buildings at an isolated crossroads; there is a Tom Town Road in the area. Newspapers.com results are for the road, scanner errors, and references in the serialization of a novel titled "The Old Silver Trail" by Mary E. Stuckney. Not in Rennick's Carroll County directory, index, or Carroll County post offices]. Google books brings up the Tomtown Road, a Tomtown Tunnell, and some hits for the place in "The Old Silver Trail". Unless "The Old Silver Trail" turns out to be some sort of factual local history (I'm seeing no evidence, as it was published as a novel by Lippincott in 1896), I don't see how WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. As with Barebone, it's possible I missed something, in which case I would like to be corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would guess there might have been some town here (for the tunnel to be named after) but doggedly I'm going to stick with WP:GNG and say that a settlement whose only documentation is an exhaustive list isn't notable. Searching produced nothing beyond the tunnel, and while I can see where that was, (it has been daylighted) nothing convinces me that there was much recognition of the few houses to the west as a town with a name. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky in the entry for English, Kentucky states the following "Carroll Co.'s common schools were not organized comprehensively until 1867. At that time, English Station School was designated as District 15. Other schools near English Station included Tomtown, District 17, on the West Fork of Mill Creek." I suspect the reason this settlement isn't showing up in newspapers is because it pre-dates most of them and had ceased to exist prior to their first publication. The encyclopedia entry references two works which may have more details (Campbell, Justine Tandy, History of the Carroll County Schools, 1976 and Gentry, Mary Ann. A History of Carroll County, 1984). This map clearly shows it was the largest settlement in the district after English. This is a verified settlement with a school, so passes WP:GEOLAND, and we shouldn't delete it simply because it's not discussed in detail in Google Books or Newspapers.com online sources per WP:NEXIST. ----Pontificalibus 09:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find it a bit odd that (one) search returned weather reports for a ghost town. Other than this particular oddity, search does not return any reliable sources on this location. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment For anyone interested I've found an interesting website called 'North Kentucky Views'. Some takeaways:

Maps post-1899 don't seem to contain Tomtown, which might indicate that sometime between 1883 and 1899 the settlement ceased having any significance.

Here's an old photo and a newspaper transcript about a crash near the Tomtown tunnel (no mention of Tomtown). Also some related pictures on this page about 'English'. Caroll county page here Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently Strong Delete Useless town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have posted at in a couple of Wikiprojects [3], [4] to solicit more responses.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pontificalibus. Mottezen (talk) 07:44, 20 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. Prior to release, consensus appeared to favor draftification of the article. However, since release, consensus appears to have shifted to keeping the article due to the inclusion of further sourcing. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Java

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

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production satisfies general notability, and nothing is said about production. Since the film is unreleased, nothing is said about reception. Recommend draftification until film is released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film is releasing in 10 days time. It has significant coverage in media, news and other sources(116.68.96.220 (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Draftify until the release as it might not meet WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Alternatively, delete can be appropriate if draftifying is not an option. Kolma8 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Agreed, draftify this article until after release and more reviews are available. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article has notability and references from notable sources.
Anish Viswa 09:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Movie has released and received reviews from Malayala Manorama - https://www.manoramaonline.com/movies/movie-reviews/2021/02/12/operation-java-malayalam-movie-review.html and The Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/operation-java/movie-review/80882782.cms. There are other references from The Hindu - https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/operation-java-is-a-cyber-crime-thriller-says-director-tharun-moorthy/article33810750.ece and The New Indian Express - https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2021/feb/03/watch--operation-javatrailer-promises-a-thrill-ride-2258690.html . Probably should stay now. Jupitus Smart 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film has now been released and has received secondary coverage such as a full review in The Times of India and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted as it shares so many information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.57.110 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) This is good. This should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.57.110 (talk) 12:01, 13 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Roknipour

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

The nonnotable footballer supposedly plays at USL League Two which is equivalent to division 4th. The WP:BEFORE was unimpressive, no significant coverage in addition to failing to attain WP:NFOOTY, the instagram account mentioned in the article indicates the person is a non notable singer! This article should not be in Wikipedia. Chiro725 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been some COI edits in the page lately, which when questioned turned out paid editing. Chiro725 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 17 appearances in the USL Championship, which is listed at WP:FPL, confirmed by Soccerway - so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comfortable NFOOTBALL pass as above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prima facie, the article and person in question meets NFOOTBALL pass as above --Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 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 redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the Lehigh Valley

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

This is an odd list because Leigh Valley is not even in the top 50 metropolitan areas in the United States. All the malls are already available in List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania so I see no reason for this list. Redirect would work fine or reformat the Pennsylvania list to organize it by region. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated the article because it has been edited recently. Otherwise I would have redirected the article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 06:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania. No need for a list of malls in a more defined geographical area. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania as per above. Patently obvious. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shopping malls in Pennsylvania as per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lehigh Valley#Retail shopping which is a better target, and currently contains a list of shopping malls in an inappropriate template format, so would benefit from this table.----Pontificalibus 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Separate article is not needed. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:35, 14 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) 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhibited

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. WP:PROMO applies. Not enough details for a standalone article. Being endorsed by Cher, a notable singer, does not make this subject notable. Information listed is also WP:PROMO and WP:CATALOG. While this could have been redirected to Cher, "uninhibited" can be a general term, so I don't think a redirect could be appropriate. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being endorsed by Cher, a notable singer, does not make this subject notable. Subject disappeared after two years in varia mergers, No longer exists. All references are about Cher's endorsement. Well, If I Could Turn Back Time, maybe. Today, no meet GNG. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (May Jailer album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. An unreleased album not for commercial purpose. Derived from unreliable sources ("Pop Crush", "So So Gay" / Digital Spy is not a reliable source for music articles). Did not chart on any albums chart. No further information than the leak date in 2012. While I could have assumed WP:BOLD and redirected this to Lana Del Rey, no information beyond a single sentence is discussed at the supposed target article. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has received quite a bit of coverage, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Michig above. All those references are reliable. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good to pass WP:NALBUM with reliable sources indicated by Michig. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. Daniel (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 Jaar Na Daddy Cool

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boney_M._discography#Non-international_compilation_albums. It's possible there's something in non-English languages, but if there is, I'm not finding. This appears to be the garden-variety non-notable one-off compilation album, which are usually safe to just redirect if there's no coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney M. discography. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, no chartings, certifications or accolades. Ashley yoursmile! 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JalenFolf, Ashleyyoursmile – actually, this album did chart in two countries, in the Netherlands [11] and in Belgium under a different name [12], so it has a better claim to notability than the other Boney M. albums that have been nominated for deletion recently. It was also released specifically to tie in with the group's 25th anniversary and was promoted by the record company, including TV adverts, I think. So unlike the other non-notable compilations, there's a better chance that coverage of this album exists in print media in Europe at the time. That said, at the moment we have no prose and only two chart positions, so I would not be against redirecting this album for now. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney_M._discography#Non-international_compilation_albums. This one is not as villainous as the other Boney M compilations recently discussed by the AfD community. As stated by the folks above, it hit the charts but there is still very little significant and reliable media coverage or pro reviews to qualify for WP:NALBUM. The fact that it reached the charts as part of the band's 25th anniversary can be mentioned at their Discog article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but... the compilation album was „released by BMG in the Netherlands in 2000“. Just sayin' --Dirge Jesse (talk) 20:53, 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 redirect to Boney M. discography#Compilation albums. If there is disruptive recreation feel free to come to my talk page to request protection. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Boney M.

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boney M. discography and PROTECT against reversion. For the exact reasons as stated by everyone at the affiliated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Baker (album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there hasn't been an attempt to redirect this article before I started this AfD, I do not believe protection will be necessary. It will be useful to stop any IPs of WP:LTA/HANOI, including the current protection, but that's it. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I would not be surprised if the usual shenanigans with Boney M compilations start happening with this one after we redirect direct it for the first time. But I admit that my call for justice before the crime even happens doesn't constitute due process. We may see this album in the AfD list again... consider my premature accusation of a crime to be a prediction instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doomsdayer that the redirect will need to be given indefinite extended confirmed protection (ECP). JalenFolf, the Hanoi vandal has visited this article 15 times in the last two months. You yourself have reverted the vandal two of those times. The vandal will convert the redirect to an article as soon as is possible; you can see that Special:Contributions/27.72.131.220 performed that type of action on January 24 and again on January 25: edit warring to restore an article. It's what they do. Wikipedia commonly protects articles in expectation of vandalism, prior to the act. For instance, the Wikipedia:Today's featured article is always move protected by Special:Contributions/TFA Protector Bot prior to it appearing on the Main Page, and its images are likewise protected. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boney M. discography#Compilation albums, and a protect may be necessary, given past behaviour. Another unremarkable Boney M. compilation, which I think was originally released only in Germany, so even print coverage from 1984 is likely to be zero. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruletown, Kentucky

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

Yet another one where the GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, only for Rennick not to mention this location in his thorough Casey County directory or exhaustive index. The only newspapers.com reference is bizarrely a scanner error for the word rifle. Topos show a handful of buildings in a loose scatter around a rural road junction, but do not give a name for the site. The rest of my WP:BEFORE turned up two bare mentions to "Ruletown neighorhood" in exhaustive lists of places, with the rest of the hits being for a place in Texas or the words rule and town used consecutively. Even if there was a Ruletown neighborhood, WP:GEOLAND requires legally recognized populated places, and I'm seeing no indication that this place ever had legal recognition. Additionally, WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have looked in Internet Archive, Google Search, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, and GEOREF and cannot find any historical records that specifically mention a town by this name in Kentucky much less any hard, positive evidence or proof of this entity's notibility. Like Hog Farm, I have found only clickbait from its Wikipedia entry and texts where the words "rule" and "town" used consecutively along with "Kentucky." In agree completely with Hog Farm. Paul H. (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing on any topo, and the aerials show no sign of a settlement. I'm beginning to think we can start PRODding these "Rennick-only" GNIS entries given the track record. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Strong Delete No sources, the page is one sentence long, yet another useless town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has for far too long emphasized quantity over quality. It has lead to this articles that have no clear proof they are even reporting a name that was every actually used for any place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no discussion from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changez Charity

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

Aside from a brief buzz surrounding the Duchess of Cambridge possibly being interested in being a patron, there is no coverage to establish notability for this charity. I can find scant evidence to even verify the work they do (under either name). StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 22 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. Sandstein 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lintoy

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:AntonioMartin with a rationale on talk [13] from which I'll quote "distributed by... major brands... Many websites describe it as a 70's favorite brand". Fair enough, but sadly I still don't see any in-depth coverage that GNG requires, and a few sentences on fan / collector websites like [14] don't seem close to being either reliable or in-depth. Maybe there's some list this could be redirect to (there's no referenced content here to merge right now, however). Disclaimer: I removed a spam-link that was a fake reference (to a commercial website selling some of their products). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - brand was distributed by Ertl, Bachmann Industries and Corgi..it also had many major airlines as customers which included some of the legendary names among airline companies. Keep in mind also they are from the 1970s-1980's, an era when the internet was not as developed as a personal tool. But there are many websites that attest to their notability.Antonio SuperBowl Dude Martin (dime) 08:40, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
- AntonioMartin, Websites like? Bonus points if your answer explains why they are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get the reliability issue, but even if I cannot find reliable sources, being mentioned in a lot of websites, even on Ebay for that matter where you can find many Lintoy being sold, means the brand at least has some notability..and notability is a lot of what Wikipedia is about...I mean if you are notable then you are worth on inclusion, right? Antponio Big Lethal Weapon films fan Martin (que que?) 22:01, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
    - AntonioMartin, Yes, except notability generally requires being covered in reliable sources. And fan websites or ebay don't meet such criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in sources about such toys such as Die-cast Aircraft, as one would expect. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Are you talking about this 2018 book? All I see in it is a mention of the topic in the single sentence: "Often the same models are sold in different packaging under several different brand names. This mix of military and civil types carry the names Lintoy, Bachmann/Lintoy and Tomy/Lintoy Sky Tomica. (Vectis Auctions)." I don't think it meets any definition of 'coverage' I am familiar with, instead it's a trivial mention in passing. If there is more please quote relevant passages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources passes the WP:SIGCOV guideline and so is adequate for our purpose. The policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, SIGCOV example is "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." And trivial, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.". You provided one sentence in a book. Which of the two examples there does your 'contribution' of one sentence represent more closely? A book on the topic or a trivial sentence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a matter of size but significance. The book has at least a page showing a range of models and indicating that the company partnered with Bachmann and Tomy. We have articles for both of those and so this makes it clear that there are sensible alternatives to deletion which is policy. As, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we are not here to perform detailed development of the topic for the nominator's amusement, this will suffice to dismiss the deletion nomination. The nominator has been making numerous nominations for toys lately – a fit of pique inspired by their failure to delete the landspeeder, it seems. Our efforts have to be correspondingly economical per WP:CHOICE which advises us to "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." That's policy too. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To enable further assessment of the sources and a clearer consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep votes suggest that sources must exist, however notability not clearly established and consensus unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is to be a redirect it should be List of model aircraft manufacturers. I agree with Andrew that this brand was pre-internet so there is hardly any coverage on the Web that showed gng at the time it operated. There are sources out there but none seem to be SIGCOV, Big Book of Toy Model Aeroplanes by Tom Millar, Collecting Corgi Toys by Mike Richardson, Die-cast Aircraft by Paul Bent Adams, plus quite a fews additions of Model Collector have small articles. They are notable and the planes are highly collectable, (some of their model cars were rubbish I had a Mercedes C111 when I was a kid) and there is lots of chat on model collecting websites. Problem is they come under WP:NCorp which is designed to stop exploitation by current businesses. I have in the past put forward a historical impact/impirtamce policy, much like WP:Basic #2, where small amounts added up to show Notability (in wiki terms) but it didn't get any take up. In the case of this company, they are notable historically as they are collected, but fail our rules. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found this too - https://dinkytvspace.com/113-john-steeds-jaguar-xj12c/. And that they made products for Schuco toys too. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Davidstewartharvey, Even if we disregard NCOMPANY, how does this pass GNG? It's interesting their products are collectibles but do we have even as little as a single reliable source that says so? Otherwise, the article is not only a GNG - stretch, but OR too (based on forum posts, collector websites, and worse). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As I said in my first post, there is not one SIGCOV, just snippets, or small articles that don't have the depth, and so therefore does not meet our rules. It's my frustration that sometimes Wikipedia rules are wrong - this is a clearly notable closed business which is collected, but our rules say its not as we don't have SIGCOV. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, Our rules can always be changed. Maybe you can start a draft for Wikipedia:Notability (collectibles)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I have already tried a Historical Impact/Importance rule which failed, and so far my current idea in the village pump for a Public Transport SNG has not exactly got a plethora of responses! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:32, 22 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. by strength of arguments and sources presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cariphalte

AfDs for this article:

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

Two No Consensus AfDs, the most recent in 2014. I can find only one source newer than that AfD, but none of the sourcing establishes notability for this product. It simply mentions that it exists, not how well it performs or anything close to in depth. StarM 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its present form this is not really any better than a dictionary definition. Not every product is notable, and there is no sourcing here that in any way suggests why this product might be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last go
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. Claims of additional sourcing and notability have not been proven. Time to let this one go already and stop the "no consensus" carousel. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A cursory Google search establishes that lots of sources exist, and make it clear that this is a well-known product in the industry. These include at least two peer-reviewed studies (5 and 6 in the links that follow), contrary to one of the professed reasons for nominating this article ("the sourcing [doesn't establish] how well it performs or anything close to in depth"). Examples of sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8. Other sources were also raised in this article's previous nominations; they simply have not been incorporated into the article. Johnpacklambert and TenPoundHammer appear to be basing notability off of the state of the article, but that is not how notability works. Incidentally, the nominator's claim that there were "Two No Consensus AfDs" is just flat-out false: The first was closed as a keep. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. An, Yanqing; Zianzhi, Shao (September 2014). "Effect of Aging on Rheological Property of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. 638–640: 1149–1152. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1149. ISSN 1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.
  This is a peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte. According to this page from SCImago Journal Rank, "Applied Mechanics and Materials is a peer-reviewed journal which specializes in the publication of proceedings of international scientific conferences, workshops and symposia as well as special volumes on topics of contemporary interest in all areas which are related to: 1) Research and design of mechanical systems, machines and mechanisms; ..."
2. Hua, Tan (September 2014). "Study of Rheological Properties of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 638–640. pp. 1185–1189. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1185. ISSN 1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.
  This is a second peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte from Applied Mechanics and Materials.
3. "Tackling Reflective Cracks". Civil Engineering. Morgan Grampian: 30. May 1988. ISSN 0305-6473. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes, "It is with this problem specifically in mind that Shell Bitumen UK introduced a polymer modified bitumen — Cariphalte DM. The binder is made from a special two-component, highly polymer compatible bitumen, ... As a result, when a surfacing bound with Cariphalte DM is loaded by a moving wheel, a greater proportion of the deformation induced by this load will be recovered. ... Since the commercial introduction of Cariphalte DM in 1986 over 400 000 m² of hot-rolled asphalt containing this binder have been laid on sites ranging from Cleveland in the north to Kent in the south. The majority of this use has been overlaying old concrete carriageways on motorways and trunk roads, such as the M20, M2, A4 at Hammersmith, A10 and the Dartford Tunnel approach road."
4. Hunter, Robert N. (1997) [1994]. Bituminous Mixtures in Road Construction. London: Thomas Telford. p. 36. ISBN 0-7277-1683-2. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes, "Fig. 1.18 shows the nature of the change in the BTDC profile between a 50 pen bitumen and one styrene block co-polymer, styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) which is produced by Shell Bitumen and marketed as Cariphalte DM. The improved elasticity of the binder makes it suitable for use with hot-rolled asphalt wearing courses overlying cementitious bases, lean concrete roadbases or old concrete carriageways. ... Shell Bitumen produces an alternative binder, Cariphalte DA, which is used for friction course mixtures."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cariphalte to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded and added the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time per sources presented much later in the discussion. Further input from other users regarding those sources would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment I don't see that those sources do anything but prove it exists, which isn't in doubt. They're not significant or in depth coverage. StarM 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, it is difficult to see how, if you read—or even just glanced at—the sources in question, you came to that conclusion. At least four peer-reviewed articles, expressly about Cariphalte, its properties, and its performance, have been cited. Then there are the news articles: among others, an interview about Cariphalte to mark the product's 50th anniversary, an article about how and why the Bugatti Circuit of Le Mans was repaved with Cariphalte, and an article about how any why Cariphalte was selected for the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge. In short, there's plenty of coverage, it's directly about Cariphalte, and it's in depth. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References provided by Cunard above meet the requirements for establishing notability of a product as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the absence of any evidence it was ever a town, but ping for undelete if that changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dow, California

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

An interesting exercise in failed photointerpretation going on here, as the topos initially show a siding with a large tank and some other industrial buildings which gets replaced, on the maps at any rate, by a bunch of buildings, many of which are H-shaped. More recent, higher-resolution images reveal them to be stacks of pipe on the grounds of the Westar logistics facility which has taken over the area. I have to presume that "Dow" meant the chemical company, but at any rate the evidence is that this was always a rail/industrial site. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This result on Google Maps shows a community. And there are mulitple sidings and tailings ponds. So, not sure. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not show a "community". First of all, the larger area is an industrial zone, not a town. Second, going back historically, Dow itself starts out as a small area right next to the tracks at the northeast corner of the present developed area; I do not have any clear indication that anyone ever thought of the larger area as "Dow". Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete Yet another useless town stub Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spring Harvest#Media production and coverage. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faithworks

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

Non-notable magazine. Only found one source. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not sufficient coverage of sources. The only one source mention is not enough descriptive to make the magazine notable. Rondolinda (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This was a short-lived magazine published in 2007-2008. Presumably, it failed to sell well enough to continue publication. That suggests to me that it is (was) NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spring Harvest#Media production and coverage. It only takes 2 minutes to add it's single paragraph to the mag owner's article's relevant section. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 16 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) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican Planet

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

Does not seem to be a notable publication. Only found one or two throwaway mentions of it in independent sources. Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Magazine is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- What is is circulation? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we started deleting every article that is sourced only to the subject's own website. We need to stop allowing articles to come into being that do not have any independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal

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

WP:1E + Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Source in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search does not bring anything that gives GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being subjectively the "last" person captured in a fort does not in any way make someone notable. The page tries to claim much bigger impact and importance than really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three more sources to the page. The sources describe him as a leading anti-colonial figure as well as one of the main native African sources regarding tactics both by the Europeans as well as the counter-tactics used by Africans. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Taleh#Dervish_forts -- all the sources seem to discuss him in that context and I am not seeing an independent pass of GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please check the sources that are being added against the information that is being added to the article. They are not SIGCOV, they do not support the material being added to the article. They are simply being added to puff up the article, not because they have anything to do with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just because a Latinized name is spelled different from its native name doesn't mean the two characters suddenly become different people. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of the sources you are adding are about individuals other than the subject. But directly, how does this reference and this reference support any of the content you have added? // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Africa in Soviet Studies" source discusses a "false letter". This letter they're speaking about discusses a letter which Xoosh claims was forged by the British to be derived from a man named Salah, a revered individual who the British knew was influential enough to cause a rift within the anti-colonial camp. According to the claim of Xoosh or Hosh, the original letter contained no damnation of the anti-colonial struggle, whilst the forged letter did. (if you are interested in the Salah letter, this page gives some insight [15]). As for the "Diwaanka" source, you most sources have snippets, but this link gives you most of the content (here). If you try word-find the term "Xoosh" on that page, you frequently see "waxaan ka qoray" before the name of Xoosh. The term "waxaan ka qoray" literally translates to "this was derived from" or "this was written from". On the extended Diiwaanka version you see even more such examples. In each of these examples entire chapters of colonial and pre-colonial history is singularly derived from this man. The entire chapter you see on these pages come from this man as a source. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What you just described is a mention of a name, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, now its your turn to translate what "madaxdii Daraawiisheed" means. It means "head of the Dervishes", meaning Xoosh was among those who led the longest lasting anti-colonial resistance in African hsitory. How does leading the longest anti-colonial resistance in Africa translate to non-notable? Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Go on any translating service and type "madax", the lemma form of the word madaxdii. It will either translate as "head" or "leader". Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anyone advocating that this page be deleted, you should also advocate that Koos de la Rey and Christiaan de Wet be deleted. This page is essentially an overlapping subject because Boers and Daraawiish not only had the same adversary, but at the same time. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:58, 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 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

(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 [16] 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. Intothat darkness 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]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II or USS Willard Keith (DD-775). There are thousands of recipients of the Navy Cross and this does not give automatic notability. Without further significant coverage it is not established. Keith's actions in the battle warranted this award but it's not indicated how they were central to the battle among the at least 31 who received the Navy Cross for Guadalcanal and other participants who didn't. This does not pass WP:SOLDIER. Reywas92^Talk 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:FieldMarine User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 25 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.Looper5920 (talk) 00:44, 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) 01:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Willard Keith (DD-775). It is well-established consensus that having a ship named after you does not satisfy notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin Walsh (closed just three days before). Walsh also had a ship with his name, was awarded a Navy Cross and was a captain. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entries in List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II have no article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 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]

Keep Another failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:18, 8 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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AINA PTT

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

Promotional article for a non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, a before search links to primary sources and sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems promotional article also there is not sufficient coverage sources that make the organization notable Rondolinda (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was thinking of nominating this myself due to WP:NCORP failure but you beat me to it; sources do not address the company in enough detail to meet requirements Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article that fails WP:CORP. Any independent RS coverage is routine in nature, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheitaan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The only reference in the article that speaks of the film in any detail, is boxofficecollection.in, however that is not a reliable source. Can't find anything of significance searching for "Faisal Saif" along with "Sheitaan". According to an unreliable source that I can't link to because it's on Wikipedia's blacklist, the film is a remake of another Saif film, Islamic Exorcist, which I have also nominated for deletion for the same reasons.

It is also worth noting that the chief article builders, RadheSlate and CursedSoulFromIndia were the same person operating two accounts, and have since been blocked for sockpuppetry. They have a very narrow focus of interest, and I think that this article was created to promote the films of Faisal Saif, which could suggest either UPE or COI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources so it does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Tessaracter (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to their respective namesake ships.

Redirect Henry R. Kenyon Jr. to USS Henry R. Kenyon (DE-683)
Redirect John P. Gray to USS John P. Gray (APD-74)
Redirect Jeff Davis Woodson to USS Woodson
Redirect James C. Owens Jr. to USS James C. Owens
Redirect Ulvert M. Moore to USS Ulvert M. Moore (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry R. Kenyon Jr.

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

As with numerous other people currently up for deletion, a Navy Cross and a ship named after one is not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exactly same reasons (all members of the same ill-fated squadron, all awarded the Navy Cross and all with ships named after them):

A verdict for William W. Creamer was reached three days ago to merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. His namesake destroyer escort was launched, but not completed. George M. Campbell is in the same (uncompleted) boat as Creamer. His Afd is still open.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Henry R. Kenyon Jr. to USS Henry R. Kenyon (DE-683), John P. Gray to USS John P. Gray (APD-74), Jeff Davis Woodson to USS Woodson, James C. Owens Jr. to USS James C. Owens and Ulvert M. Moore to USS Ulvert M. Moore. All fail WP:SOLDIER (single award of Navy Cross, minor roles in Battle of Midway) and WP:GNG as they lack SIGCOV in multiple RS. MilHist consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability is that being a ship namesake does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to their respective namesake ships. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of them are even close to meeting our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Makes sense to have the namesake of the ship handled in the article about the ship if the namesake is not independently notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 16 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Göztepe İhsan Kurşunoğlu Anadolu Lisesi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ture i Berg}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cralosophus}}