Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 31	January 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Emperor of the French. Sandstein 10:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and styles of Napoleon

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

Delete This entry is a somewhat useless discussion of the various chivalric orders that Napoleon founded or of which he was a part but does not actually reference the title and style of the French Emperor. This article should either be rolled into the main entry about Napoleon and any existing links to this page should be redirected to the relevant portion of the article discussing the title of Emperor of the French. 215lax (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom, merging this with the main Napoleon page is the best option here. Article content is not substantial enough, or notable to warrant its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (created by blocked user). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shamshamster1234, User:Manfromnewmexico was blocked in September 2020. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Mitchell (IRA General Commandant)

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

Nothing has changed since the previous AfD, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell, of November 2019. Other than that the socking family member who created this genealogical entry has used another of his (now thankfully blocked) profiles to create this entry. In short, the subject of this article still doesn't meet:

WP:MILPERSON - In that the subject's membership of the IRA is no more notable than the 15,000 other people who were members during the same period. Contrary to the claim that the subject was a "Commandant General" in the IRA (obscured by attempted ref-bombing*), the subject actually was a "captain" in the organisation. A rank verifiable in several records. And a rank that doesn't meet the expectations of WP:MILPERSON. (* The references offered to support the claim that the subject was "Commandant-general" or "General Commandant" are a family memoir (which doesn't make the claim at all), and this blogpost which also doesn't. The latter, even if it were a reliable source, verifiably doesn't use the term "commandant" or "general" when referring to the subject. Rather, it simply states that the subject was the "commanding officer" of another person. Which just means they had a rank higher than "volunteer". And does not support the claimed rank. At all.)
WP:GNG - In that the coverage available (including that linked in the article) doesn't meet SIGCOV. Other than the self-published family memoir, the subject is not the primary topic of any of the other works listed. All of those listed (and all of those that are available) are trivial passing mentions only. Where the subject is mentioned alongside many many other people who were involved with the IRA and IRB at the time.

That the author has (yet again) engaged in ref-bombing, SOCKing, and created this article under a different title than that used before, all points SIGNIFICANTLY towards an attempt to avoid scrutiny and review. Guliolopez (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhian Mohalla

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

I accepted this in error. The sources whether now or in the earlier version that I accepted do not seem to support the content. See also the related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kakkay Abbasi. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was created by COI user Kakkay Abbasi. No indication this is a major neighborhood in the current city. The users who created this also edited this information into the Rupnagar article so that needs to be reviewed as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to confirm subject's nobility, relevance and truthfulness of the claim. RationalPuff (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Do not delete This article is authentic. You may find it in popular literature and this place Shekhian Mohalla still exists. You may see it on google map. At this link. https://www.google.com/maps/place//data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x39055436a0426b8b:0x5959d40de6dd7ce7?utm_source=mstt_1

~~Do Not Delete~~

I have also listen about this place in youtube documentaries. As well as in popular written literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~

Shekhian Mohalla is basically most old part of Ropar city. I know personally about it People of this locality were Ropari Sheikh Abbasi who after partition of India in 1947 migrated to Pakistan. Still name of this locality is Shekhian Mohalla you may check it on google map as well as by Waqaf Board Office Ropar, also from District Govt administration of Rupnagar (Ropar). It will a great pity if this article is being deleted which connects the past with present and future. If any additional documentary reference is needed then tell me. I may provide.

Check here that there is recent mentioning of this place about Covid-19. Means this article is about something authentic.

https://www.coronacitywise.com/in/covid/coronavirus-in-Rupnagar-93151

Check this site which is 100 % proving the truthfulness of content provided in article Shekhian Mohalla

www.maria-online.us/travel/article.php?lg=en&q=Rupnagar_district

Type ( https:// ) in beginning of above link as site was not publishing the link with https://

~~Do Not Delete~~

Sir User:AngusWOOF You can see on below link that this place Shekhian Mohalla is part of Rupnagar.In below google map link is location of Shekhian Mohalla on google map. Still this historical place exist. So Sir now your opinion now may change as you said that this place does not exist. While this place exists. https://www.google.com/maps/place//data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x39055436a0426b8b:0x5959d40de6dd7ce7?utm_source=mstt_1 comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

How is the neighborhood independently notable from the city? Google map just shows existence but not notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of this place roughly about one hectare that needs a Wikipedia article on? RationalPuff (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no evidence of the place's independent notability. Might be more productive for the submitter to compile some reliable sources and add this content to the Rupnagar article. If none exist, and this place really is as important as they say it is, perhaps they should spend time getting external coverage of it, which Wikipedia can then reflect. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~

@AngusW🐶🐶F @User:Kohlrabi Pickle Dears this piece of land is not only one Hector this piece of land was single central hub for All Muslims of this Thesil Rupnagar (formally known Ropar) before 1947.This was single block related to Muslim community before partition around which whole politics of tehsil Ropar moved. There were fifteen thousand votes of this muslim community in Elections of India in 1946 related to this muslim central hub of Tehsil Ropar. Thay you may check on Election 1946 Reoprt of Punjab. So to say it that it was merely one Hector of land is not just. You may prove authenticity from Ambala Gazzattiers 1983-84, 1923-24. All the fact may be mentioned aslo in Cenus Report of India 1941. There are lot of Youtube videos about migration and Muslim politics of Tehsil Ropar in which this place is mentined by the people and there is mentioning and importance of people of this place. I have also placed few links in my previous comments, while there are lot of links to mention here but wikipedia doesn't allow many links. So there are more to describe the authenticity and necessity of this article. This shows that this place is not merely a hector of land. This place has more significance than a piece of land and in future this article may be expanded because this place has also significance in historical pint of view. Other thing is that whole Rupnagar city is composed of four hectors. So why is there full article on Rupnagar city on wikipedia. So don't try to make a hector policy by your own for wikipedia. Deney the things with facts. Don't be personized about the things. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

@Page Representative: Wikipedia has rules on verifiability of its content. If what you are saying is true, you need to provide multiple reliable, independent sources that say the same thing. You can't quote only primary sources like election or census reports, because the conclusions you draw from them are original research. What I suggested above is that if no sources exist, then you should spend time on putting together reliable sources (for example, a newspaper, journal, or university-level textbook. See WP:RS.) Once there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, you should not have further issues. If these sources already exist, please locate them and show them to us here. If I am persuaded by them, I will change my vote, and I'm sure the same is true of the others. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~

@User:Kohlrabi Pickle Dear Sir I may presume that according to wikipedia policy just commenting with out any knowledge is not enough. In my previous comments I have mentioned multiple sources regarding this article. Dear Sir go for checking the reference books and links articles whose names as I have mentioned above. Check references of this article. After that comment here. Because you know nothing about this article and you are merely commenting. Even you are not getting bother to check books, links, articles which I have mentined. I have mentioned enough reference books names. Kindly first check them go for these books pdf downloads check and then comment. I am expecting you will do it and then leave favourable comments. Thanks in this regard. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

@Page Representative: The burden of proof is yours, unfortunately. I see some oblique references to "popular literature" and "documentaries", but nothing specific. I see references to "Google Maps" and primary sources like election and census reports. Both I and AngusWOOF have explained why those don't help you. Good luck. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete @User:Kohlrabi Pickle here burden of proof is on everyone who is presenting his opinion. If you have seen google map then it means that this place exists. Second thing is if you have seen Census Report of 1941 it means that content of this article is authentic. It is not fictitious.I have mentioned here more references in my previous comments you may probe into them. So with out doing proper probe to refute or accept does not suit to Wikipedia Community member. Otherwise it looks that some community members only appears online to put comments and they have no time even to probe the matters about that they are putting comments. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

WP:BURDEN says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" So you are adding content and references. The census and other statistics reports only show possible existence of such a neighborhood / development but not independent notability. It doesn't go into detail on the area's history. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the coronacitywise section and it has "The district comprises four Tehsils, Rupnagar, Anandpur Sahib, Chamkaur Sahib and Nangal and includes 617 villages and 6 towns: Rupnagar, Chamkaur Sahib, Anandpur Sahib, Morinda, Kiratpur Sahib and Nangal All the towns except Chamkaur Sahib have railway connections The Satluj river passes close to the towns of Nangal, Rupnagar and Anandpur Sahib Shekhian Mohalla is a famous old central part of Ropar city in hold of migrated Hindu and Sikh population Before partition inhibited by Muslim Kakkay Sheikhs of Ropar (also known Kakkay Abbasi) Now this is a great trade hub of Ropar city Ghanauli is also Another Famous village of Ropar : Because of Freedom fighter Harnam Singh Kavishar, this village come to the top list in British Raj", so it only has one line that mentions "Anandpur Sahib Shekhian Mohalla". That means it could be added back to the city's history section with reference, but not enough to stand alone. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, the coronacitywise looks unreliable, and the language (with all its errors) is near-identical to that in the Rupnagar district article. The similar section was added by Page Representative themselves. See this diff: [1]. I wouldn't rely on it, especially as it looks like Page Representative has a close connection with the subject. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlrabi Pickle, so that means either user-generated or COI and possible close paraphrasing. We'll need external news sources instead of that website. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the Do not delete boldings above that were coming from Page Representative as they were being misinterpreted as multiple votes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the same for later comments. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added strikethrough tags and removed the bolding again, when Page Representative reverted your changes. I added a comment below as well. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree with the comments above, looking at the article, there is nothing here establishing its supposed notability. In addition, it looks the articles was created by someone who had a COI, and sockpuppets have been created to keep the article up, which isn't reassuring!!! Seems to me there is one person here writing a lot of comments to support the retention of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @AngusW🐶🐶F kindly avoid to edit and change my comments. Have trust in Wikipedia management.They can realize more better than anyone about the things. So if you want to be disagree then use logic and facts to deney the things. I request you kindly do not modify or edit my comments. If you want to do something then do what we have discussed in above comments. I have no close connection to this article. I am only trying to convey here that you are trying to make judgement with out any knowledge. You have not seen Census Report of 1941,You have not seen Ambala Gazzattier 1983-84 and Ambala Gazzattier 1923-24 to verify the nobality of this place. It means that with out doing it you are denying the facts you must have some grudge to this article. So you suppose to be COI. Here you are Mentioning some material from Rupnagar district from wikipwdia and no research from external sources that I have provided from outer sources. You are speaking about now about Corona Reports. Do you think that a Corona Report will tell you about nobality of place ?? Lot of laughter for your approach. If you want to verify the nobility of report go for probe of sources that I have mentioned in my comments. It seems that you have some close relation and motif to delete this article. So probe the things, don't appear only to put comments as COI editor. Firstly you and one other respectable community member were saying that this place Shekhian Mohalla does not exist and delete it. Now you yourself saying that this place exists. When you will probe the evidences that I have provided you will say that this place really keeps nobality to be separate article. Go Sir take pity on Wikipedia and don't come here only for putting comments. Firts do research have knowledge then comment. During course of whole this discussion your opinion is floating and getting change which showes your poor level of research and probe into things. While your such behavior looks to go against wikipedia community standards. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs)

~~Do Not Delete~~

~~Comment~~

~~Here notable things are :~~

~~1. Members who were saying in early comments that delete this article this place does not exist, Now they are saying this place exists.~~

2. Then these members were saying that this place is not worthy so delete the article, Now they are saying that this place has less worth to be separate article and add this place to history of Rupnagar. It means they accepted its worth after some independent probe.

3. These respectable Wikipedia community membera gave their first opinions with out any probe and knowledge about the matter. Still now after their semi probe into the evidences which I have provided in my comments these community members changed their opinion but they left big evidence sources to probe.

4. Now they are questioning the nobality of place. I request to them probe into the evidences that I have provided in previous comments. You will again change your opinion as you early deney the existence of place and then accepted it. So be careful to comment here. Otherwise it seems that you come online time and again only to comment and have no research spirits. This is lethal for Wikipedia.

~~It is also againts community standards to put supportive comments from different accounts and same IP address. It looks the same person is doing the job.~~ ~~comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs)~~

Comment @ User:Kohlrabi Pickl kindly avoid to edit and change my comments. Have trust in Wikipedia management.They can realize more better than anyone about the things. So if you want to be disagree then use logic and facts to deney the things. I request you kindly do not modify or edit my comments. If you want to do something then do what we have discussed in above comments. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

@Page Representative: Each person gets one vote, but you have written the words "Do Not Delete" 7 times, giving the misleading impression of multiple votes. That's not a big deal, really, because the closing admin will simply count them as one vote. I, like AngusWOOF, changed that to "Comment", but when I saw that you had reverted AngusWOOF's changes, I self-reverted. You then reverted my self-reversion, so I'm not sure what you want from me. A final bit of friendly advice that Shekhian Mohalla will almost certainly be deleted by the closing admin unless you amend your approach and engage constructively with the comments and questions that the rest of us have posed. I think the points you make have now been addressed many times over. I would also remind you that we have rules on Wikipedia on civility and casting aspersions. I suggested that you may have a close connection with the subject because of your pattern of editing a narrow field of subjects and the vehemence with which you are defending this article. I am happy to retract that suggestion if I was mistaken. If you believe that AngusWOOF and I are engaging in sockpuppetry, then you are welcome to report it at WP:SPI, where an admin will investigate. However, if you continue to cast aspersions without evidence, you may find yourself banned from editing. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment You have no right to edit someone's comment. Wikipedia Admin can judge better than you. So be civil to keep yourself to edit your own comments. This question also rest on you that why are you trying to rejecting and accepting the things about this particular article illogically and with so enthusiasm. It means either you have some close interest to delete this article ?? First of all you denied the existence of this place and then accepted that this place exists. Then you questioned its nobality. I argued and provided evidences in above comments and you begain to beat about the bush. Here point lies that if you have no interest in this article then why are you here with your gigantic comments. And if you are here for improvement then why are you avoiding to know the facts from evidences provided by me. I want to show this also to Wikipedia Team that here on Wikipedia there are such editors who only come to put comments, have no interest and knowledge about the topic. This is my point that I want to show by arguing about this article. I here want to explained to Wikipedia Administration that how editors on Wikipedia only collecting job experience from wikipwdia while they have no spirit to do work. No knowledge . Only come to comment with out knowledge and spirit to do better for Wikipedia and then gone offline. comment added by Page Representative (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

@Page Representative: It is perfectly OK for an experienced editor in good standing to remove duplicated bolded "keep" or "delete" comments. I have added strikethrough tags to your duplicated "do not delete" comments. Each editor gets to make one such comment. Don't remove the amended formatting from your duplicate comments again. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete I have gone through the whole article. I also analyzied evidences and reference in article and in this page commented by different persons. Evidences seems to support this article. So keep it on Wikipedia and do not delete. Nonofficial2 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment @Admin pleae note, this is obviously a sockpuppet barely created moment before adding vote. @Page Representative: it is clear what you are trying to do here and it's not working. RationalPuff (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::*Comment @ User:RationalPuff Sir why are you putting blame one me. It may be you or all other persons of this chat who are taking me personally. Sir raise logic and facts. I respect you. Page Representative (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC) _{Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kakkay Abbasi Greyjoy^talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Do Not Delete

Iam editor of this article. This article does not go against community standards. I request to keep it on Wikipedia. If there is some advise. I will follow. Thanks. Kakkay Abbasi (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kakkay Abbasi, you need better reliable sources than what was presented that show it is notably independent from the current city/district. The articles listed merely show possible existence in supposedly civil/public records. But as per the citywise web page, there are hundreds of villages and various tensils/neighborhoods in the district. Why is this particular one more notable than the rest? Also, your username is the same as the group listed in the article; that's a big red flag for conflict of interest. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kakkay Abbasi is currently sock blocked, but is making an appeal. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the socks seem to be appealing their blocks... in a very similar way Spiderone 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I will recommend to keep this article. More can be added in this article. NKFJ (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NKFJ has been sock blocked. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources completely fail to establish notability Spiderone 11:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom by DGG and my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note Rupnagar district's section would also have to be amended following the results of this unless that is supported by RS. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "delete" opinions do not address the sources in any detail. Sandstein 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Res

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

No significant independent coverage in secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. While she's quoted in a fair amount of places as a whistleblower of a sort against Donald Trump, there is insufficient independent biographical coverage of Res herself to justify an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organization of the article may have obscured the amount of coverage that may be available. I have reorganized and created sections, and added a few sources with additional information, and can continue later. Beccaynr (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the additional sources are more of the same when it comes to significant independent coverage of Res. The book reviews make a case for the notability of Res's book about Trump, but I'm not seeing enough independent biographical coverage to justify a separate article about her. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage with regard to Res' advocacy, showing that she is not WP:LOWPROFILE and I am still working on that section. I also haven't looked into her first book much yet, which may provide additional independent biographical coverage, because it is a memoir. Also, there is an additional voice for keep on the article's talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I made some recent additions of sources to the article describing Res' recent book, and I think this article may also fit WP:ANYBIO, specifically "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field," not only for the recent book, but also for the sustained coverage of Res over time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think this article clears WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage in a variety of published sources that have now been added to the article, including secondary sources (e.g. WaPo describing a connection between Res' description of her experiences and other reports, Atlantic and New Yorker articles incorporating her information, The Independent and HuffPost drawing comparisons with her comments and Mary Trump, the Berkshire Edge review, Newsweek and the New York Daily News noting she is part of a collection of former Trump associates who have published books) that appear to be reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In addition, per WP:INTERVIEW, there are serveral sources that take note of some of Res' interviews, (i.e. Newsweek, The Independent, and HuffPost) and perhaps can be considered "evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time." Beccaynr (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability also seems supported by the WP:3REFS essay, which states: "In order to show that a subject covered in many news reports is notable, three independent references from three different time periods, would in general successfully rebut notability challenges. References from three different time periods would go a long way to establish the endurance of the subject being covered." The Res article now includes more than three independent references from the 2016 campaign, more than three from the Trump administration, and three from the post-election time period, so there appears to be enduring coverage of Res. In addition to that coverage, the article also includes more than three independent references covering the publication of her recent book, so notability also seems supported per WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Just as Rosguill already stated, I too cannot see in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources pertaining to the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To further address the nom's concerns about independent biographical coverage, I have added a reference from Business Insider and information from existing sources, and rearranged the text in the Career section of the article. I also have added a profile from People magazine in the Advocacy section, and a HuffPost report in the Works section, both of which also support WP:AUTHOR. To clarify why I think WP:BASIC also supports notability, the basic criteria states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and the coverage of Res has been extensive and ongoing in a wide variety of independent and reliable sources, including secondary sources described above in my previous comment at 23:44, 19 December 2020. Beccaynr (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trengereid School

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blussuvoll School, a school with zero notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is informative and well-sourced. Doremo (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First three sources in article are database entries, final source in a brief community interest story about the opening of a preschool. BEFORE showed nothing that would establish SIGCOV. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 00:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a primary school. Almost all primary schools are non-notable and there is nothing that suggests this is one of the extremely rare exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jong school

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

Same reason as WP:AFD/Blussuvoll School, school with zero notability for ages 6 to 13. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the article containing zero sources and there being just as few about it anywhere else from I can find. So, this article can clearly be deleted for not passing either WP:NORG or WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Nothing that meeets SIGCOV from BEFORE, single source in article is not IS. // Timothy :: talk 00:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability, no sources Alex-h (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a primary school, we need a lot of sources to show notability. The only source here is the school's own website, we need much better sourcing than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visions of Violence (film)

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

Non notable film, completely fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Seems like self-promotion. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - worth noting that page creator has said The proposed deletion was requested to be removed because this film ties in directly with the other director's film: Knock 'Em Dead, Kid (film). I could see a possible request for some verbiage to be corrected but this is a viable page for a real project and the references were cited. Instead of requesting deletion, please make recommendations for a possible fix. I've messaged them to see if they have any reviews for this film. I couldn't find any in a search. There weren't even any user reviews on IMDb! I'll wait to see if the creator can provide reliable sources (none of the ones in the article are). Spiderone 23:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there for this film to establish how it's individually notable. Assuming the other film is notable, notability is not inherited from the other film. IMDb is not usable as a source on Wikipedia because it's easy to submit false or incorrect information. It doesn't mean that the info here is incorrect, just that the abuse from others has been so bad that IMDb just isn't reliable. Even if it could be used, it would be a database listing at best and couldn't give notability. Since notability is an issue here, I'll investigate the other film to see if it also has notability issues. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other two sources, search my trash and a self-published blog, aren't usable either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for the other film is definitely questionable, but I'd give it a weak pass based on the reviews. (FWIW, it's mostly because the sources appear to be trustworthy enough for notable persons to give interviews with.) It's not the strongest, so I'd definitely recommend putting better sourcing in that article. I'm not sure how it ties into VoV since it doesn't seem to have any of the same characters. If there is a tie, like it being in the same universe, then there could be a section for this in the KEDK article. It is set in the same town, so it's likely. Otherwise if it's just a case of it having the same director, then that's not really enough of a tie to warrant a mention. In any case, there would need to be a reliable source to back up the claim of it being in the same film universe. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reviews nor awards nor decent coverage in WP:RS Spiderone 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article promoting a film that fails WP:NFILM and the GNG by a long long shot. Java Hurricane 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify for potential reuse when the game is released or otherwise achieves notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem Brawler

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

Seems to be a case of WP:NVIDEOGAMES with a smattering of WP:CRYSTALBALL. We should probably wait until the game's release to create an article on it. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added many details and sources from official sites. Can you check it again please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordZangar (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. CRYSTAL wouldn't be a problem if there was ample coverage of enough information to justify an article, even if the game is upcoming. However, there are just two reliable sources[2][3] and both cover the same announcement from November á la WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. LordZangar and McRunninFly appear to be COI editors. IceWelder [✉] 18:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A swathe of new sources was just added. Note that most of these are unreliable, only Igromania and Gamekult are not. However, these two (if not also all others) still cover the same announcement in RUNOFTHEMILL fashion. OP's CRYSTALBALL argument remains valid. The article may be recreated at a later point in time if it eventually becomes notable (either through previews, reviews, or other feature pieces). IceWelder [✉] 13:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: I would consider the WebTekno one as a RS too. Though that's based on experience I had on the Turkish Wikipedia. Maybe this article is a WP:TOOSOON, so draftifying can be an option. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are a couple of reliable sources mentioned above. Might qualify for an article after its release. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Lack of sufficient coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines for this not yet released game means it should not remain in mainspace. However, sending the article to draft to await its' eventual release (and, presumably, greater coverage in reliable sources) seems a reasonable outcome in line with WP:ATD-I. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to British American Tobacco. Sandstein 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British American Tobacco Ghana

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

fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to British American Tobacco per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject is briefly covered in:
1. Owusu-Dabo1, E.; Lewis, S.; McNeill, A.; Anderson, S.; Gilmore, A.; Britton, J. (2009). "Smoking in Ghana: a review of tobacco industry activity". Tobacco Control. 18 (3): 206–211. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.030601.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
I was not able to find substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into British American Tobacco. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Foxnpichu. Mccapra (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, into British American Tobacco, if not delete Alex-h (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, into British American Tobacco. // Timothy :: talk 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rentz (card game)

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

This article was created in 2012 with 2 online references, both of which are now deleted dead links. I can find no trace of it in the literature nor online (except for circular references). Nor is it listed by Parlett or McLeod at pagat.com. It is currently completely unsourced. Unless someone can locate a reliable source, this is a clear deletion case. Bermicourt (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any mentions, let alone in-depth coverage to show this even exists. Claims to the American version of a Romanian game, but that article is also wholly unsourced. Seems to be WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cắt tê

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

The article was created in 2006 but appears not to be notable. I cannot find it in any of the extensive card game literature available or reliable online sources especially pagat.com. It appears never to have had online citations and the only source quoted seems to be an online gaming site. Unless we can find reliable sources, my sense is that it should be deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the single source in the article, I can find zero coverage of this game, either under the name of the article, or its Anglicized version, "Catte". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that there is sufficient coverage in the belowmentioned books to meet the threshold of the General Notability Guideline. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Sox

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

Non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British crust punk band. The article was created back in 2006 by a user who is not a SPA, but the article has been edited by the users "Concrete Sox" and "Vic sox croll" who are. The former user's name is shared with the band, and the latter's name is shared with the founder/singer's name, so the COI is obvious. Concrete Sox is also blocked as of now, for spamming. Vic sox croll isn't, but his edits revolve around this page as well. Anyways, there are no reliable sources presented, and I couldn't find anything that indicates notability. Youtube, metal archives, discogs, spirit of metal, blogs and retail sites are still not reliable and they never will be. And I couldn't find anything else besides these. I have noticed that Concrete Sox has a following in the underground, but there are no reliable sources available that a Wikipedia article could be built on. The German article is equally poor in terms of sourcing (at least there are a book cited), and the Hungarian one also relies on blogs as sources. No evidence of notable members and labels. Maybe there are print sources available, since this was a pre-Internet band. But during a Google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Btw, I have an (awesome) book called "Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal and Grindcore", and it mentions Concrete Sox, unfortunately, they only appear as a mention in a small list of other crust punk bands and on a concert poster. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia. They would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, certainly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concrete Sox have 8 pages devoted to them in Ian Glasper's book Trapped in a Scene: UK Hardcore 1985–1989, and also shorter coverage in a couple of other books. They were a significant and influential band in the UK crust/grindcore scene of the 80s/early 90s, an era from which it can be hard to find coverage online (it will certainly exist in print sources from that era). Their albums have been released by labels in multiple countries, including Germany, Japan and Malaysia.--Michig (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The eight-page coverage sounds awesome, can you please post it here? About them being influential, I know that since I am familiar with the band, I just haven't found anything reliable during a google search. But that's why I said "maybe there are print sources available since this was a pre-Internet band". GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since we are talking about books, they occupy p. 332-338 in Alexandros Anesiadis' book Crossover the Edge. Obviously, book contents can't be posted here. Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't mean to paste the whole eight-page coverage here, just the link of the book. But as I see, they have been covered by other books as well, so leaning towards keep now. 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has substantial coverage in reliable book sources as described in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the two sources found above put it over the GNG threshhold, the amount of other books about that era of music which contain information on the band make it appear notable. I know that last is a "sources must exist" argument, and if that was the only argument, without the 2 solid sources, I'd probably !vote the other way. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - They seem to just pass GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book sources provided are reliable and satisfy WP:N criteria. I could probably fairly easily find more sources but I think the Glasper and Anesiadis books are easily enough. Needs properly referencing in the article, obviously. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottavio de Carli

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

BLP. Only reference is to his own book. Rathfelder (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on what others have written about someone, not just what they have written about themself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and WP:V. I looked and found zero newspaper articles about this person. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill the King (band)

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. The article on their EP should go as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 12 year old page created and maintained--and eventually abandoned--by multiple SPA editors and unsigned IP addresses, most likely for vanity/promotional purposes. Unsourced and no achievements to meet notability.ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdvantaClean

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

Non-notable business, written like a corporate profile. All of the links in the article are links to the company, its franchises, or other poor sources which wouldn't confer notability. BEFORE turns up WP:ROUTINE/non-independent coverage, mostly in local news (stuff like "new AdvantaClean franchise coming to SomewhereTown" or "tips on cleaning your home from your local AdvantaClean franchisee"), but I didn't find anything that would make this company notable. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources to meet the hurdle of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Due diligence only identifies run-of-the-mill coverage of the sort generated by any semi-competent corporate PR department. Wikipedia is not for corporate listings. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocky (card game)

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

The article was created in 2004, but has never been adequately sourced since. It's also been tagged as needing additional citations since 2016. I can find no mention of it in my extensive library of card game books, nor is it listed by pagat.com or in David Parlett's massive tome on worldwide card games, The Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). To be fair there are a couple of online sources - Cats At Cards and Cardgame Collection - but both look like private sites and I'm not sure of their reliability. The article cites a self-published book which is not readable online. The previous deletion discussion took place in 2004 in the early days of Wikipedia and the arguments for retention do not appear to meet current guidelines. So all in all my sense is that it doesn't meet notability criteria and should be considered for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation besides the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 20:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Even though I found these two independent reviews ([4], [5]), I'd argue it's still not enough to pass WP:GNG.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Fiedler

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

This page denotes the subject of a 2005 paternity lawsuit against Prince Albert of Monaco that was rejected, and the subject in question is a non-notable model with little to no independent reporting. Bettydaisies (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear one event failure. We have also stopped allowing promotional pushing titles by one magazine to matter at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment per Johnpacklambert Rajuiu (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivisions by Punjabi speakers

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi_language#Geographic_distribution seems like a good place for a partial merge of the places it's primarily spoken. List of states and union territories of India by Punjabi speakers is one of a series of articles in Category:Lists of states of India by number of speakers of the languages that should perhaps be merged into a single table. List of countries of the United Kingdom by Punjabi speakers should be deleted or merged along with this article. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

List of provinces and territories of Canada by Punjabi speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has already been deleted by PROD.
List of countries of the United Kingdom by Punjabi speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I've done a PROD today.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:WWIN: an assortment of transcribed statistical data with no context. 22:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Sawyer

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

Fails WP:Notability_(people) and WP:GNG. Few references found outside of IMDB and a fan site for "Coronation Street." Tagged for notability issues since 2011 and as lacking reliable sources since 2012. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced, and this guy turns up no RS anyway. Fails WP:GNG Kieran207 talk 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not satisfy NACTOR. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time we stop being an IMDb mirror. I know, with literally thousands of articles sourced only to IMDb, this may take a huge amount of time, but we need to begin to move towards that goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep WP:HEY/WP:SNOW. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ackerman Hill

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. There is a claim that he was a flying ace in the article, however it is not sourced. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a start, he was a flying ace. [6] Has a reasonable number of reliable sources museum [7] obituary [8] road named after him [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With one Google search I too confirmed, as did Hawkeye7, that the subject was a flying ace and a highly decorated World War II fighter pilot. This clearly passes WP:GNG as well as WP:SOLDIER. The subject received a heroes welcome upon his return from war, and a New Jersey Causeway was named after him, not to mention being given numerous awards, including a Congressional Gold Medal among others. I fleshed out the article some and added content with reliable sources, but it could easily be added to even more, using reliable sources stated above. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'd like to see some better sourcing here and particularly details of his total kills. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, NJ aviation hall of fame, ace, decorations, colonel. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clearly now demonstrated. Apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and good work by AuthorAuthor. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otgonbayar Ershuu

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

This article was created by the artist himself via now-blocked sockpuppets. The sources all appear to be closely connected to the artist (mostly from his own website). I also did a search in Mongolian and couldn't find any independent sources, though I obviously can't be sure. He might not pass WP:NARTIST either, as the exhibitions he claims to have been featured in are relatively small, besides the National Art Museum of Moldova—though the source for that is dead. Even if he may be notable, it might be best to TNT it. Ovinus (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete The images were all uploaded by the artist (user: "Otgo"). The promotion here is extreme (e.g. web url embedded in some images). The product we are presented with is so promotional that it is difficult to say he is notable by independent coverage; the same is true of the search results I saw: While I saw a couple good sources, I wonder if they are the result of promotion or press release churn. This is one of those cases where an artist's ceaseless promotional machine (and the socks mentioned above) work to discredit their notability by heaping doubt on sources. Possibly (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has four sources: http://www.artavenue.mn, http://www.bipchisinau.com, http://www.mongolian-art.de and https://www.suedkurier.de. Südkurier is a regional newspaper from Konstanz. Art Avenue is a Mongolian gallery guide that "partners with galleries, museums, foundations, and institutions". In other words, it is not an independent, reliable source. http://www.bipchisinau.com is the Bienala Internațională de Pictură, which is affiliated with the National Museum of Fine Arts, Chișinău where the subject won the Grand Prize, the article has a text by de:Martin Stather, an art historian. http://www.mongolian-art.de is operated by Ershuu and is neither independent nor reliable. He posts some articles from other sources though, and it might be possible to cite them properly. The artists fails to meet the GNG and WP:ARTIST with the current sourcing; there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I could be convinced that it does exist, but I have not found it myself. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found an additional source in Der Tagesspiegel: [10] Vexations (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good find; I should have looked for German sources too. The automated translation sounds very promotional but I don't speak German so can't know for sure. As Possibly noted above, Otgo has tried to promote their work very hard, but given the newspaper's prominence I think we can consider this article independent? Ovinus (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ovinus, I don't know what you're using to translate, but deepl's translation is quite good. The article is problematic; the writer is a freelancer, not staff, and it's basically a promo piece for an open studio event. It does not do what I'd want from independent art criticism; critically engage with the subject matter. I don't think it's independent; the article is mostly a retelling of what Ershuu told Rieger. Beyond talking to him, did she do her own research? I see no evidence of that. As an art critic friend of mine explained: Because he's well known in the art world, gallerists often come to talk to him and give him their sales pitch. So he says "Please let me work, and if I have questions, I'll come and ask". That is independent journalism. This, not so much. Vexations (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah I agree it's very promotional, but I didn't realize reputable newspapers post promo pieces like this. I'll be more vigilant in the future. Ovinus (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only the nominator has proposed that the subject fails the policies. Other problems don't quite seem WP:TNT-worthy; Mer-C has a point but any editor may replace any content at any time to make the article more "legitimate". Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Codd

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

Non-notable musician with one published single, per wp:Too soon. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfys criteria #2 and #11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Criteria #2 with ^[1]^[2]^[3] and passes criteria #11 with being on rotation with Capital London^[4] and also as extra hes been played by BBC Radio 1 and KISS.^[5]. This should be enough to establish musical notability and he also has press coverage to aid with WP:GNG. Thanks, Pulisi (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes two criteria of WP:NMUSIC but could do with more evidence of significant coverage in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO due to top 100 tracks in 3 countries. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE His track "Get Out My Head" has hit #4 in the UK charts this week. That is pretty significant! Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not officially number 4 and still isn't yet. It was number 22. You used the midweek chart's data, which is not the full official week and should not be used. I'm not saying it won't end up number 4, but please know the difference in future. Ss112 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as filer. Recent development that article was created by an undisclosed paid contributor (see Undisclosed Paid Editor) who is now blocked, just consolidates my thoughts on this, as advancing people's professional careers at Wikipedia's expense and gaming our system is just wrong. The article is about a guy that has some coverage, yes, but that is not noteworthy, especially in the music industry. I've seen way better sourced articles on much better covered individuals fail here because those editors realize that fame and notability are not the same thing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that regardless of UPE, this guy has currently Top 4 track in the UK, so he meets WP:MUSICBIO and should be kept. If removed, sooner or later someone else will attempt recreation.Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it allowed to double vote, when you already nominated the page? I think you need to change this to a "COMMENT" so the deciding admin does not count two DELETE's for you. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not allowed. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, WP:DEL4. MER-C 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that regardless of UPE, this guy has currently Top 4 track in the UK, so he meets WP:MUSICBIO and should be kept. If removed, sooner or later someone else will attempt recreation.Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latter outcome is what I had in mind - someone who is not paid or has a COI should be able to recreate this. MER-C 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Top 100 Singles, Week Ending 1 January 2021". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
^ "Official Scottish Singles Sales Chart Top 100". Official Charts Company. 2020-11-13. Retrieved 2020-11-23.
^ "SHANE CODD | full Official Chart History". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 2020-11-27.
^ "Rotation playlist of capital fm london as of 1 january". Capital FM London.
^ "Irish DJ & Producer Shane Codd Releases Official Music Video for Debut Single". IMRO. 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2021-01-01.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Hosayn Ayati

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

Fails WP:BIO. Other than Iranica he only has trivial mentions in a few Baha'i sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is included in Iranica (WP:ANYBIO) – Thjarkur (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is a notable Iranian character. I'm expanding the article and adding multiple sources. Also translating from the larger article in Persian. Illuminator123 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is a notable Iranian personality. He has written many books on various subjects, including poetry. Historian and scholar Juan Cole calls him "a prominent historian of the Babi and Baha'i movements in Iran."^[1]Serv181920 (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole, like Abd al-Hosayn Ayati, is an ex-Baha'i who went on a campaign of defaming the Baha'is. His promotion of Abd al-Hosayn Ayati is self-serving bologne and shouldn't be used to establish notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more than enough sources to show that he was both notable as an Iranian poet, author, historian, and orator and also a very important Baha'i character. Illuminator123 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i leader Shoghi Effendi called him the "foremost historian of the Bahá'í Faith."^[2]Serv181920 (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. The Iranica entry appears to meet WP:ANYBIO. WP:NAUTHOR also appears plausible or likely -- note that the pattern of reviews for a person active in the pre-internet era may be somewhat different. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The substantial coverage of his arabic language works alone should make the subject notable by wp:academic BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalric Romance (2000 film)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE in both: Russian or English indicates this pass WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Choir 2021

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

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. The page has no meaningful information on the contest's organisation or even confirmation that it will actually take place. All content simply describes what won't happen. Eurovision Song Contest 2022 was draftified for similar reasons. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. It is very concerning that we have an article for an event that doesn't appear to have even been announced. This is different than other times where we don't know the date. They literally haven't even announced that the contest will take place. Grk1011 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as this article fails WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:CRYSTALBALL). Because this event may become notable in the future, I believe it's better to draftify than to delete so people can keep working on the article. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree with the initial nomination. After reading this, I still don't know anything about the event, but at least I chuckled. — Andreyyshore T C 19:02, 1 Jan 2021 (UTC)
Draftify per all of the above Spiderone 19:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. There's no affirmative information about the event, including whether it's even been announced. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Draftifying is appropriate since the article may eventually receive significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Long

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

Fails GNG and as a BLP requires impeccable sourcing. There is nothing here that suggests that sourcing exists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to justify retaining the article as of now. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There isn't really a reason for deletion identified here except POV / non-neutrality, but in my view this is an unconvincing argument: we do cover as subjects territorial claims or changes that may be illegitimate, see e.g. Category:Irredentism, which does not prevent us from neutrally covering the subject. To the extent that the title may be non-neutral because it reflects the Israeli view about the status of Jerusalem, or the contents may be redundant to other articles, these are issues that can be resolved editorially without requiring deletion. For these reasons, I can't give the "delete" opinions the same weight as the "keep" opinions here, given that the notability of the event at issue (however one might want to call it) is uncontested. Sandstein 10:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification of Jerusalem

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

Redundant, material may be merged as necessary in Jerusalem Law, Jerusalem Day, West Jerusalem, Jerusalem, East Jerusalem or Status of Jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy reason given for deletion. Anyhow this topic meet WP:GNG so no reason to delete --Shrike (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, it's merge and delete not delete, redundancy is a policy reason in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Please give a link to relevant policy Shrike (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be helpful Shrike, this page was created just a few years ago by a blocked sock, redundant = fork (content and POV, both).Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of what article exactly? I think you just WP:DONTLIKEIT.This a notable topic that deserve a separate article Shrike (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question and I answered you. You are quite right about my not liking it, I don't like nonNPOV content forks set up by blocked socks. Don't bother me with any more pointless questions, the closer can decide.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with this name can never become NPOV; that name reflect a 100% pro-Israeli view. A Palestinian might want to change the title to "Occupation of the whole of Jerusalem" Huldra (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is inherently POV, and as Huldra notes above can never become neutral. Furthermore, the content is almost entirely written from an Israeli perspective. This is inevitable, since it is only possible from such a perspective to see the city as united. It is indeed under one political administration, but it is patently obvious to any visitor or observer that it is ethnically, socially, culturally and economically divided. A useful article could possibly be written about this, but certainly not under the current title, which implies acceptance of a highly-disputed assertion. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously going to go down the road of NPOV? There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that carry a non-neutral POV. If you have relevant opposing views to what is presented and can find reliable sources to back it up then add it to the article. AfD is not for article cleanup. Either the subject is notable and provides reliable sources or it doesn't. That's what you should judge its merits on. Not opposed to a merge as described above but if the intent is to use this merge to then bring the new article to AfD then I feel this is pure manipulation and the article should be kept as is. We don't get rid of articles because someone doesn't like the contents. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @Huldra and RolandR:--Maher27777 (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true for any article, that its material may be merged into other articles ("Jerusalem Law, Jerusalem, East Jerusalem or Status of Jerusalem"). The point of having an article is that this is a noteworthy subject in itself, which unifies all the information about that subject in one place. Including the fact that a remembrance day was instituted because of it. The claim that it is POV is irrelevant, since any POV that has become noteworthy, becomes deserving of an article. That is in addition to the fact that the POV claim is ridiculous, akin to claiming that Independence Day (United States) is POV. I would say that this nomination is POV (just see the list of the usual editors on the "delete" side). Debresser (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to one of "the usual editors" on the "keep" side, we could rename it Annexation of East Jerusalem. What do you think?

And we are not saying that Jerusalem Day is POV (yet).Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I would not be adverse to discussing that proposal after this nomination is closed as "keep" or retracted, because that is an interesting proposal in its own right, and should not be discussed in the framework of a deletion proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect I have noticed that there are about two orders of magnitudes more articles on Wikipedia than active editors. In other words, whether "Reunification of Jerusalem" is real topic or not is rather inconsequential because no one will ever take the time to develop the stub into a substantial article. Besides, there is very little actual content in the article that is not already present in History of Jerusalem. ImTheIP (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of editors available to work on articles is not a valid argument for deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept like German reunification. There are a whole lot of sources covering "reunified Jerusalem" or "reunited Jerusalem". While there are geopolitical agents that are opposed to the city being under a single administration, the reality is that the city is administered as a single unit. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Vici Vidi: AFAIK, after year or two no country opposed German unification (although there were some -understandably- scepticism at first). After 53 years: no country (with the exception of US?) har recognised the "Reunification of Jerusalem". "Slight" difference, wouldn't you say? Huldra (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US (Trump admin) says that it is a final status issue to be agreed between the parties, they simply agreed to recognize Jerusalem as capitol.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reunification of Jerusalem is a legitimate and highly notable topic. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vici Vidi. Being controversial makes this more notable rather than less. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem here is that East Jerusalem has been annexed in Israeli Law. Now, either the Jerusalem Law is the annex (the lead of this article says that the Jerusalem Law formalized the action described in this article) or the extension of municipal boundaries to include East Jerusalem and application of Israeli law there (ie this article) is the annex. The slew of UN resolutions (not even mentioned in this article) following the action described in this article treated this as an attempted annex. Now I don't mind which way around it goes but trying to disguise one event as two is pure nonsense. Why was this article written in 2017 when the Jerusalem Law article was written in 2004? Well, look at the creator and you have your answer.Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely isn't in good shape, but I don't see why reunification can't be a process with multiple steps rather than a single event. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#By_Israel for what I am talking about. If this ends up as keep then I will propose the merge directly, either here or at Jerusalem Law. The celebration (of the day) is already at Jerusalem day, the holiday part of this is somewhat irrelevant.Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do as you please. You have been opposed once, and such a proposal will likely be viewed as forumshopping. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rename proposal is another possibility, you already approved of that above, seems you have a selective approach. I admitted on the article talk page that I don't know the best way to fix the problem but that there is a problem is clear from that same talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with the idea of a discussion to rename the article. A merge proposal I would almost certainly oppose. Just saying. BTW, I don't see the problem. Please understand that he fact that you see a problem does not mean that other editors see a problem.Debresser (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only me I wouldn't be bothering with this at all, like I said see the talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Debresser. Maybe we could specify that this is a term used in Israeli historiography or something similar. Super Ψ Dro 01:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indulekha (1967 film)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to warrant an article in a general encyclopaedia Spiderone 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A very slim NFOOTY pass, but a clear GNG failure being repeatedly recreated Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Molerovic

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

Has been deleted numerous times in the last month. I can't find anything outside the unreliable sources used in the article (Instagram and Transfermarkt). Flashscore says he played once in the second tier of Bosnia, ~~so looks to fail WP:NFOOTBALL~~. Can't see him passing WP:GNG. Has been sent to draft already but the page creator just recreates the article, defeating the purpose of it. Spiderone 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update - he does pass NFOOTBALL according to Soccerway but by the thinnest of margins. 51 mins in the Serbian second tier two seasons ago. I'll keep the discussion open in case anyone has any further comment on the sources available or doesn't think the Soccerway source is enough to keep. Spiderone 15:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demir Avdic

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

Page was deleted via PROD two weeks ago. I can't find anything to suggest that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. This is the only source that covers him. Flashscore, World Football and Soccerway don't have any appearances recorded outside the Austrian third tier. Spiderone 14:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Pacifico

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

BLP with only reference to his own works. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither diplomats nor writers get an automatic "inherent" notability freebie just because their own self-published websites about themselves technically verify that they exist. Notability requires reliable sources, independent of the subject, to externally validate the significance of their work by writing about and analyzing it in the third person, and is not automatically extended to just everybody who has the ability to metaverify their own biography by virtue of self-publishing their own website. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need all articles to have sources that were at least created by someone other than the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publication subvention

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

No evidence this concept is notable. It's just a WP:DICTDEF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that WP:BEFORE has been followed and my impression is that this just a drive-by. There's some difficulty in searching for more sources in that publications which have been sponsored in this way tend give a credit. But it didn't take long to find a book on the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this book on the same subject? It mentions the term "publication subvention" only a few times, and it seems only as a reference to a bureaucratic set of rules of National Endowment for the Humanities. There is no evidence this concept is widely defined or analyzed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination is based on WP:DICDEF. This policy does not mean that we delete short articles; the policy explains that that is a "perennial source of confusion". Instead, the main point of the policy is that "things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." Now, the book I cited is about "publication grants". That's the same as "publication subventions" because a subvention is a grant – they are synonyms. The book is therefore about the topic and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Feel free to rewrite it with references into an article about publication grants, which I admit seems to be a more popular term. Given the current unreferenced/substub state of the article, and possible confusion due to plausible but unconfirmed synonyms, WP:TNT seems like a reasonable option to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're not synonyms, one is an example of the other. Socrates was a man, but "Socrates" and "man" are not synonyms. Publication subvention is a particular type of grant, used primarily in academic publishing and in contexts where the work is unlikely to make a profit. Other types of grants exist: for example, those used in non-academic publishing and offered solely on merit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that "BEFORE was not followed". The reference cited above does not seem to mention this concept, and no convincing argument has been given that Publication Grants are the same concept as Publication Subvention. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GCB's quotation is not accurate. The complaint about the sources is likewise false. What we seem to have here are Polish editors having difficulty with English. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew!.. What on earth?!? Why did you think assuming other editors' ethnicity, claiming their English difficulty, and using it as an argument in contest dispute is a good idea? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article has been around since 2004, with no significant updates. In fact, lots of unsourced information has been removed. That's plenty of time to meet WP:BEFORE. I'd welcome a new article which was properly sourced and backed up the notability. As of right now, this is just a definition. ~RAM (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any indication that this is a notable topic. Nearly all Google Books/Scholar results seem to mentions in acknowledgements sections. We should probably have an article on publication grants, but for this to become that article it would have to be moved and entirely rewritten. Andrew Davidson's resort to racist personal attacks to defend this one-sentence stub that's been unsourced for 16 years is among the stranger things I've seen at AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Ding

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL festival. 9 Google hits for "Wing Ding in Rockford". Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; a few local sources with WP:MILL coverage of a local event, but no substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per poor coverage; however, everyone's most hated band performed, so it could be re-created if good sources were found. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddlers Green, California

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

Not sure what this is/was, but it seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. The topos show literally nothing there, with the typeface for Fiddlers Green sometimes being in the one reserved for natural features. Newspapers.com hits are one referring to the Fiddlers Green area in Glenn County, but the rest are for a mythological place, a horse, some sort of video game or movie involving zombies, and a ranch in Modoc County. Can't quite tell what this is/was but it don't seem notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No post office. Searching GBooks for ' "Fiddlers Green" Glenn ' yields a soil survey and an outdoor guide, nothing that indicates there was a community there. I found the same things in newspapers.com - nothing supporting a community. As there is no legal recognition and virtually no coverage, this locale meets neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite its colorful name, apparently derived from an old US Cavalry song, the place itself is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I looked and found zero news articles, newspapers, and books/magazines. It's on MapQuest and Google Maps as a single site off a forest road. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Captain Atom#Rogues gallery. Anything worth merging elsewhere is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punch and Jewelee

(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 and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste edit summary that did not challenge the PROD rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero real world notability, fails WP:GNG, delete as per WP:PLOT Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Watchmen comics have been outstanding successful, inspiring numerous editions and dramatisations as a major movie, TV series, &c. A recent sequel is Doomsday Clock which continues the tradition of basing its characters on those that first appeared in Charlton Comics, so Rorschach is based on The Question who was in turn based on Mr. A – other characters of Steve Ditko, who seems to be focus of the current spree. So, the major new Watchmen characters of Marionette and Mime are based on – guess who – Punch and Jewelee. Now the current version says nothing about this because the bulk of it was written in 2006, long before Doomsday Clock was written. But this is all documented in reasonable sources such as CBR and Doomsday Clock's New Villains Change Watchmen Mythology. So, there's clearly more to do here and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

And notice that the nomination says nothing about this; it's just a cut/paste, drive-by nomination with no particulars, specifics or details about this topic. This demonstrates that WP:BEFORE was not followed and so the nomination is lacking. Proposed deletion of such topics is disruptive because it's only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I would like to point out that I nominated Mr. A to be merged with the development section of Question (character) last year. There was a unanimous consensus for it to be kept, with several voters stating that the topic was independently notable and has significant coverage. If you disagree with it, the next step in the dispute resolution process is to re-nominate it at the deletion review noticeboard. Dark knight 2149 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above are trivial mentions that fail to meet WP:GNG. The rest is just an appeal to WP:INHERITED. This topic does not presently show itself to have received actual significant coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay as they are one of Captain Atom's enemies. Also, I support the mentionings made by @Andrew Davidson:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suppose I considered myself a Captain Atom enemy. Do I get a page too? Let's be serious here. A passing mention here and there does not an encyclopedic article make. Or anything along these lines. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge with Doomsday Clock (comics). The very little coverage (which is only a few sources that I could find) that exists for these characters mainly discusses their connection to Watchmen and nothing else. And this is coming from a source check I performed myself. I have seen no evidence of independent notability so far. Dark knight 2149 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option here is Merge to Doomsday Clock. While I disagree that the sources Andrew D provided are simply trivial, I don't believe they are significant enough to base an article on. The notion that Doomsday Clock kept in the tradition of reinventing Charlton characters is a good one, and these sources could be well-used on the Doomsday Clock page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing to merge, really. Fails GNG entirely and completely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into their paragraph in the rogue's gallery section of the Captain Atom article, which can be expanded slightly. The newer sources brought up by Andrew can be incorporated into Doomsday Clock (comics). Haleth (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. Please consider SOFTDELETE (redirecting) rather than outright deletion if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Two participants have voted keep, so I don't believe that falls within the definition of criteria for WP:SOFTDELETE where no one is opposing deletion (a slim majority of participants oppose deletion in some form in fact), and this is no longer a case of minimal participation after two relistings. I thought your rationale for a PROD or nomination of the topic for AfD is to seek for outright deletion in the first place, whereas a merge proposal at the talk page would have been a much more appropriate avenue if you had simply sought for it to be redirected. Haleth (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am still not convinced there is anything valuable to merge here, but I believe redirecting to a now-identified target, while preserving the longer article in edit history, is a better outcome than hiding the edit history and red linking this. That's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article. Mentions are not SIGCOV and WP:PLOT is WWIN. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, Kern County, California

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

You now the drill by now: an isolated former siding on the railroad with nothing around it. Not notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Cameron, Kern County had post office (1899-1923). Other than that, GBooks indicates it was a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies and this locale has no non-trivial coverage. Newspapers.com has some coverage that indicates that people resided there. I found no non-trivial coverage. Please don't let the presence of a post office prevent this article from being deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as A10. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyaksha HoigeBazar Koragappa

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

My searches for this person in Gbooks and search engines, even if you exclude the middle name, are coming up with little more than Wikipedia mirrors from the previously deleted article. My concern is that this person never existed or that, if he did exist, he wasn't as well known or as notable as this unsourced article claims. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the subject is mentioned in Mangalore tiles and Gokarnanatheshwara Temple but none of it is referenced and seems to have been added by SPAs Spiderone 11:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is the subject mentioned in Gokarnanatheshwara Temple, the text seems to have been copied from there. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it qualify for WP:A10 DoubleGrazing or any other speedy delete criterion? Spiderone 23:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spiderone: Flattered that you should ask me, as if I knew any of this. :) But FWIW, yes, I think it would qualify for A10: from what I can work out, only the 2nd sentence of the 1st para is new content, the rest comes from the temple article; I don't think that single sentence qualifies as "expand upon, detail or improve". Whether the powers that be would take the same view, I don't know. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've requested a speedy delete. Even if declined, this AfD can still run its course. I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a hoax anyway. Spiderone 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches return nothing useful, so the single offline source cited, which may or may not support something in this article, is all we have to go with. Therefore I'd say this fails basic WP:V verifiability, before we even get to the question of notability etc. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a religious text or something. The reference does not help verify anything in here at all, and the page would need many more references than this. What even is this. WP:V, but also even if everything said were true I'm not sure this could meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Jay

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

Wikia material, the character's reception section sourcing is down to mostly WP:TRIVIAL mentions and cherry-picked sentences and is a total WP:REFBOMB.

Analysis of the reception sources:

Single-sentence mention in a news article
Listicle
Single-sentence mention in a news article (unreliable source)
Single-sentence mention in a review
Single-sentence mention in a listicle
Mention in a community contributor article (unreliable source)
Quote from pro Street Fighter players (unreliable source)
3 more single-sentence mentions in articles

Article evidently fails WP:GNG and is more suitable for a character list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I am not opposed to this article being redirected/merged to an entry on the main list article, and I have not yet looked into whether there is further significant coverage outside of the cited sources, per WP:ATD I am not sure why the nominator has sent this article to an AfD, as opposed to starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page or the talk page of the main list article. The nominator did not expressly say that the subject topic is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia due to lack of notability, only that it is probably more suitable for a character list, so the intent is not to in fact nominate it for actual deletion? I am using my experience of recent participation in other merge discussions about video game related topics as a reference point. Another thing I feel I should point out, is that the opinions of professional players who have won several notable tournaments and who warrant their own pages as notable public figures on Wikipedia probably do have some weight to them, as subject-matter experts. In this instance, their quoted opinions are attributed by reliable sources (IGN) and are not self published (which still does not diminish their verifiability but does invite more scrutiny). Lastly, the only unreliable source I can detect is the Bitmob Community Writer one. Which news article do you consider to be unreliable? Haleth (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling pro Street Fighter players "subject matter experts" is a stretch. In that case I would definitely be on the same level of "subject matter expert" since I'm a gamer, but you don't see me quoting myself for Reception sections. They aren't gaming critics, their views can't possibly be impartial since they are superfans of Street Fighter.

Why nominate for AfD? I agree the name will probably need to be a redirect, but the article content is largely not eminently mergeable. The reception is entirely trivial, the rest is Wikia type material that should not be merged bereft of context._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except you are not, I presume (unless at least one of the following traits describes the real you): a) someone who plays video games professionally and for a living; and b) winner of at least one major international fighting game tournamen; c) the subject of significant coverage from media publications that cover esports (and as result of that, has a dedicated BLP article on Wikipedia). Justin Wong is all of the above, only that he has not authored a book and had it published like Daigo Umehara as far as I know. Whether they are a superfan or not does not actually invalidate their opinions for metagame analyses, since a pursuit for competitive advantage and actual money is involved (for the record, a lot of the respectable video game journalists out there are themselves self-confessed superfans of their genres of interest). So yes, I believe it is not a stretch at all to call him a subject-matter expert, compared to the other pro gamer quoted in the IGN article. It's no different from us giving more due weight to the opinions of a journalist from The New York Times compared to amateur writers for a community newspaper when it comes to WP:AUD. Anyway, ~~it's a selective Merge for me since I've had time to go and search around for further sourcing for this topic~~. Haleth (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to comment, it was a little funny to make the comparison between you as a hobbyist gamer citing yourself and a professional SF player being cited through IGN. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge - Plausible search term, but not independently notable from the games. The reception section is rather awful despite its length. Not only are the sources passing mentions, but they’re not even good passing mentions. There’s nothing of substance at all, half of it isn’t even really reception as much as it’s just mundane comments vaguely about him. It’s a WP:BOMBARD situation for sure. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere and add reliable information to Billy Blanks? Blanks' article is not that long, and how often do you get a video game character modelled on you? Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and Template the article - Per Haleth. Every policy and guideline (including WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NEXIST) directly says not to nominate articles solely based on the quality of sourcing and writing. Wikipedia is not a final draft and the existing References section has no barring on notability. Additionally, AfD isn't a general clean-up page and no criteria for deletion is cited, so these WP:RUBBISH-esque concerns should have been raised somewhere else. Dark knight 2149 20:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about. There’s no violation in procedure here. He said the sourcing is so weak that it fails the WP:GNG. You’ve got some fundamental misunderstandings about AFD if you think bad sourcing/GNG failures aren’t a valid nomination rationale. It’s true that the nominator could have started with a bold redirect or a merge discussion, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with going to AFD either. Redirect or Merge are valid goals and results at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except, if you had read any of the several policies I just listed, you would be aware that the state of sourcing in the article has absolutely nothing to do with GNG. I didn't bring up redirect/merging, but since you mentioned it: those are common results for when the consensus is against deletion, but AfD is specifically for proposing deletion. There are separate processes for proposed redirects and merges. But back on topic, you mention "GNG failures", but I don't see any listed. Just qualms about the current state of the article. Dark knight 2149 01:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the way you’re looking at this is backwards and confusing. The nom says the article doesn’t meet the GNG and explains why they think the sources available don’t help meet the GNG because they’re either not reliable or not significant coverage. All extremely valid stuff. If you disagree, fine, but a valid counterpoint would be to provide some better reliable sources significant coverage. Not...whatever it is you’re trying to do here. Your reading of the nomination is very...off. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: @Zxcvbnm: First of all, everything I said was valid, so don't speculate on my motives. Second, indeed competence is required and the nomination did nothing to cite a criteria for deletion or address how the article fails GNG. In fact, it says upfront "I'm assuming it fails GNG because the quality of writing and sources already in the article being bad" (final paragraph). Literally every "analysis" point I can see is from the current state of sourcing in the article. Sorry, but that's a blatant misunderstanding of GNG. Period. GNG refers only to the existence of coverage, and WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE are also relevant here. The concerns raised in the rationale seem textbook WP:RUBBISH, but if you have a valid reason for it failing GNG, I'm waiting to hear it. If this was aiming for a redirect result from the beginning, then I don't know why it wasn't proposed as such, because I responded to this as a deletion thread (because it is one). Based on the concerns raised above, I stand by my vote. Template the article. Dark knight 2149 17:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot understand how the GNG works, or how AfDs work in general, then please recuse yourself from them. Competence is required and nonsense such as this "procedural keep" for a perfectly valid AfD just wastes people's time._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have to say something here. I think your harsh comments toward Darkknight2149 are uncalled for. I understand you don't agree with their comments here, or their general PoV during AfD discussions or on the interpretation of GNG, but quite frankly following a year of being actively involved in an area covered by WP:VG has informed me that contrary to the views espoused by some editors here, there really is no universal consensus on what to include or exclude according to the yardstick of GNG after all these years, not even experienced editors. Katherine Maher is spot on in that these days decision making on Wikipedia seems to be all about what everyone involved can agree on, rather then a pursuit for what is objectively true. The recent discussion over video game items or aspects on the VG talk page is a very good example; several editors are showing their editorial biases when they openly express displeasure at what they acknowledge to be technically correct interpretations of GNG with the creation or existence of subject topics they personally find to be irrelevant or frivolous, and expressed their intention to push their PoV further in future discussions. Even your interpretation and understanding on the issue of notability have been called out, rightfully or wrongfully, by other experienced editors over notability disputes involving articles you have created or improved.

I believe I brought up some important points to consider, because in instances like Talk:Klobb or Talk:All Ghillied Up (both articles that you created and attempted to bring to GA), the editors who pushed for them to be merged (aka soft deleted) claimed that they don't actually believe that the subject topic should be considered for deletion at all, and when confronted about their approach, they are adamant that what they are doing is procedurally correct. This is in my mind contradictory to the practice by other editors like yourself who opt to test the notability of subject topics through AfD. I also recall reading past discussions where experienced editors have emphasized the fact that AfD actually stand for "articles for deletion" as opposed to "articles for discussion", and that consideration for deletion is the primary focus for these discussions. Are mergers/redirects perfectly valid outcomes for AfD discussions? Absolutely from an WP:ATD perspective. My question would be, if an editor doesn't actually believe that the cited material should be deleted for lack of notability but simply feels that the contents of the article should be merged or redirected, should the article really be sent to AfD solely for the purpose of canvassing opinions on the subject's notability, or is it more appropriate for a merge proposal to be started on the talk page of the subject article or that of the proposed merger destination? I don't expect a satisfactory answer from anyone for a simple AfD like this, but do consider my commentary on the situation and the constant back-and-forth disagreements about the interpretation of GNG which is a fact of life in this community (if we can call it that). Haleth (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with people voting "Keep" so don't take it as intolerance of people's positions. This was purely due to the Wikilawyering deployed by him on this and other AfDs. Rather than simply state a position, he prefers to misinterpret policy to attempt to overturn the entire AfD itself. So, again, if it was just a "Keep: I think this article is actually notable because of X and Y", I'd have no issue.

In response to your question, I think an AfD is merited if you will throw out a large portion of the article content if redirected/merged, to the point it would be a soft delete anyway. A merge discussion in my eyes is when you will conserve a large chunk of the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my interpretation and stance as well. If someone has a valid keep stance, so be it. I’m just a passerby editor with no stake in this article. My irritation is strictly with this “procedural keep” nonsense. Not only is it wrong, it’s a waste of everyone’s time, because such an effort would, best-case scenario, merely scrap this discussion in favor of a second revised discussion somewhere that would just lead us to the same result of this article being merged or redirected. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: To answer your question, no. AfD is not a be-all-end-all page for "I have a problem with this article, let's discuss what to do with it!" It's specifically for nominating articles for deletion (requiring an actual criteria for deletion), with redirecting and merging reserved for when the consensus is against the nom. Zxcvbnm accuses me of "misinterpreting" policies (which they likely haven't read), but the irony is that they and Sergecross73 have been trying to stretch the meaning of WP:GNG throughout this thread. No, GNG has nothing to with what's already in the References section, and no, the state of the article (usually) does not make an article deletion-worthy. Wikipedia is not a final draft. Maybe this was intended to be some sort of misplaced redirection proposal, but even if that is the case, don't try to stretch the meaning of GNG to get your way and get snarky when people correct you. "I assume it fails GNG because of the state of the article" unambiguously goes against every policy and guideline mentioned above, and is even listed in the List of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dark knight 2149 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting people’s time. All you’re doing is bogging down discussion. Which you should not want, because if discussion fizzles out here, there’s a pretty clear consensus to merge/redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm still here is because you are wasting my time with what is increasingly looking like bad faith accusations. You haven't addressed anything I have said in any meaningful way or said anything of substance beyond finger-pointing and griping. Even administrators don't get their way by saying "I disagree with you, stop talking." Dark knight 2149 19:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not addressing what you’re saying because it’s based entirely around your misinterpretation of the nomination. It doesn’t matter how much you cite if you don’t understand the fundamental situation. It has nothing to do with me being an Admin (of which I have cited zero times in this discussion) and everything to do with the fact that you have no consensus for what you’re trying to do, in fact, there’s been zero other support for a procedural keep. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that I'm misinterpreting the nomination and I'm misinterpreting policy, but what's egging me is that you haven't explained how. It would have been best to open with that. This is what I can see from the nomination in itself:

Wikia material, the character's reception section sourcing is down to mostly WP:TRIVIAL mentions and cherry-picked sentences and is a total WP:REFBOMB

The first part "Wikia material" is largely subjective, and the second part refers to an inadequacy with the current state of sourcing in a section of the article.

Analysis of the reception sources:

More analysis of in-article material. So far, no deletion criteria or GNG failure is established.

Article evidently fails WP:GNG

Evidently based on what? The analysis of in-article sources and the article's quality? That's all that has been mentioned so far.

is more suitable for a character list.

Without establishing a genuine GNG or WP:LISTN-based argument, this is also subjective.

Calling pro Street Fighter players "subject matter experts" is a stretch. In that case I would definitely be on the same level of "subject matter expert" since I'm a gamer, but you don't see me quoting myself for Reception sections. They aren't gaming critics, their views can't possibly be impartial since they are superfans of Street Fighter.

More critiquing of in-article sources. This doesn't work because notable topics often end up with poorly written, poorly sourced, and poorly put together articles, which is why WP:ATD, WP:HANDLE, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ARTN were put in place.

Why nominate for AfD? I agree the name will probably need to be a redirect, but the article content is largely not eminently mergeable. The reception is entirely trivial, the rest is Wikia type material that should not be merged bereft of context.

This reads like further admission that the article was only nominated because the current revision is bad, and the nom assumed that it fails GNG because of it.

I have no dog in whether or not this gets redirected, but I do oppose the grounds in which it was nominated. If I'm misinterpreting something, I would need to know what it is. Dark knight 2149 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is saying that there are no reliable sources that provide significant coverage to meet the GNG, and a stand-alone article shouldn’t exist. Anything else is overthinking it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He says that it evidently doesn't pass GNG based on his analysis of the sources in the article. That's very different from "this topic lacks significant coverage" or anything that would fall under GNG. I keep rereading it to see if I missed something, but I'm just not getting that from this nomination. Dark knight 2149 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats the sort of thing I mean when I say “overthinking it”. Regardless of nitpicking over that sort of wording, unless someone finds some sourcing, this article has no hope for survival. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "evidently" I mean "unless someone pulls out a bunch of video game magazines I'm not aware of with massive profiles of Dee Jay" since he is a somewhat older character. However, the name is so common that it's rather hard to search, and pretty unlikely to come up with anything. What I don't mean is "just checking the sources in the article and not ones online", like Darkknight claims. Again, this is an example of the kind of bad faith assumptions he has been making throughout this and other discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of Street Fighter characters#Dee Jay, since he does not have a character description at the target. This character does not pass GNG, the reception section is full of trivial passing mentions and the rest of the article is in-universe information, a search brought up nothing better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the deletion discussion for this article tense - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen worse in recent AfD discussions. Haleth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for failing WP:N. Zxcvbnm sums up my issues with the sources — they all lack significant, in-depth coverage of the character and are largely just passing mentions in articles for other characters or games. I can see him being a plausible search term, but the poor sourcing proves he isn't notable on his own. I have no idea what this "Procedural keep" nonsense is about, not only does it not even apply to this AfD but it doesn't even make any sense (yet the majority of this discussion is about that?). Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just my vote and the replies to it. To summarise:

- The point of contention is that inadequate sourcing and poor writing are invalid reasons to nominate something for deletion and do not reflect WP:N.

- The counterarguments to this are that GNG is implied and Zxcvbnm may have filed this with a redirect in mind.

- My counterpoint to the counterpoint is that the final paragraph of the nomination implies the opposite and that AfD isn't for redirect requests.

I'm not going to reply any further though, because it's just getting heated and going in circles. Dark knight 2149 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the arguments presented, I agree with Darkknight2149's summary here on the appropriateness of the rationale behind nominating something which the nominator does not genuinely believe should be deleted on the grounds of WP:N. In other words, a merge/redirect outcome should be incidental to the discussion, not the primary goal of canvassing opinions on whether it deserves a standalone article which is what a merge proposal on the relevant talk pages should accomplish.

I have no qualms supporting a procedural keep for this article as suggested by Darkknight2149, but Sergecross73 insists that there is no technical error here and it seems to lack support. I suggested merge, with no prejudice to recreate article if better sources are found later down the track, because unlike the nominator I actually believe that large chunks of the developmental info, and some of the reception stuff, should be included on the relevant entry on the list article. I do believe that the subject is notable, but the current level of coverage I could find is spotty with too many false positives in searches, which will not convince editors with hardline standards that the subject warrants a standalone article, and the prose for the list article has ample room after I did some trimming. I am concerned with the accusations of time wasting though, it feels like a circular pattern where both sides calling each other out for bad faith. Don't we all choose to be participants here on Wikipedia out of our own volition, as opposed to an obligation? If you feel that you have better things to do with your time, or you would rather not argue with someone you clearly have a fundamental disagreement of opinion with, maybe don't engage? Haleth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note and after some time researching the issue, I found this: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD, and I quote: "The purpose of AfD is in fact to decide whether or not to delete an article. Lesser issues such as mergers or renaming should be discussed on the talk page or at the separate merge and article title forums. Users should be made aware of the very real possibility that the article will in fact be deleted at the end of the discussion (the result for perhaps three-quarters of nominated articles)." The initial rationale provided by the nominator did not actually advocate for outright deletion. An assertion that a topic fails GNG is justification for not having an article on the topic, not a justification for removing that topic from the encyclopedia. So, I have formed a view that there is nothing technically wrong about Darkknight2149 asking a procedural keep, as unusual as it might sound, and any attempts to shut down a conversation discussing a potential fallacy behind the nomination is quite frankly, in bad faith. Haleth (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm and I appear to have both discovered that AfD was not a way to start a redirect discussion at the same time, so I am a bit surprised that they didn't retain that. Their attitude is also incredibly poor—a ridiculous way to talk to Haleth about something so trivial. Please read WP:AFDEQ and stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you as "wiki-lawyering"; Haleth agrees with you. This is ridiculous. Accusing people of wiki-lawyering and gaming whenever they disagree with you is really not acceptable. Citing policies is not "wiki-lawyering". I disagree with the "procedural keep" stuff, but understand why it’s happened—there's like four different things happening here at once, when one thing could have been discussed on a Talk page... Re: what Darkknight2149 suggested, I've no idea what "template the article" means, and they've said it twice. Templates are predetermined elements which can be included in a page. I don't know what it means to "template" an article.

~~That said, merge the thing.~~ The nominator should have just done what was done to Klobb, and merged it. If that failed, then it goes to the talk page—again, just like with Klobb. In no way was this worth an AfD. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Current sources are insufficient to sustain the article. The assessment that they are fluff sources is correct. TTN (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning to think that User:Darknight2149 meant "tag" the article with a template. So, sorry about that! I've never seen "Template the article!" used, and the nomenclature is definitely 'tag'. That said, while the article does have some absolutely fine sources, there's still no reason not to merge it in with List of Street Fighter characters and preserve the good ones. Does Zxcvbnm think this process needs to be repeated for every other bit character in List of Street Fighter characters? I feel like the answer is no, and it shouldn't have happened with this one... ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the character is notable as one of the only three black characters in the early 1990s, two of which were from Street Fighter, and all three of which were from fighting games. I don't think that a merge is appropriate because it would lose the context of how the character was conceived by the developers which provides important context. That context is that one of the few black characters from that era was designed to explicitly address the lack of black characters in that specific series, with a seeming obliviousness of a lack of black characters in the rest of the game industry. Deleting this information does a tremendous disservice to our encyclopedia as a way to learn about how character designs have evolved, for better and for worse. I say that with some awareness that several references are short mentions but I believe that the notability is established by how many references there are, and that they do verify Dee Jay as a historically important character. (Note: an editor tried to remove the verified information that I added while ironically accusing me of removing content.) Archrogue (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the character is notable as one of the only three black characters in the early 1990s." That's great, so where's the sources that offer significant, independent, and in-depth coverage on him? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: They've been added to the article now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage total. Enough valid content to fill its own article. Dream Focus 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a full length character article with lots of coverage. I know the goalposts on notability and significant coverage are always open to discussion, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of independent sources doesn't always establish notability. But on top of at nearly twenty-odd sources, there are some that cover this character for a full page or section. And the reception section has an entire paragraph about his historic importance, and historicity within the industry is the highest bar of notability that a character can achieve. Merging would be like killing the baby and preserving the bathwater: the best parts of this article are the paragraphs about his development, reception, and legacy, none of which would fit in the bloated list of more than 90 characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archrogue has since introduced new sources into the article. I am withdrawing my position for the article to be selectively merged. It's a keep for me. Haleth (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great job, Archrogue! Really well done. As with Haleth, I'm removing my position. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So after I was chastised for voting procedural keep on the basis of the rationale ignoring WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, people were able to find significant coverage? Jeesh, it's almost as though citing policy is constructive or something. Dark knight 2149 04:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had voted (non-procedural) "Keep" and cited said coverage instead of just arguing against the very basis of the nomination, then, yes, it would certainly have been constructive. But, at the time, it's unclear if you were even aware the coverage existed. Now, personally, I'm still skeptical of the new sources raised. They are largely still short sentence-long mentions saying that Dee Jay is offensive (but no analysis... according to the developers, he was supposed to be inoffensive, so why the heavy disparity in reception)?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your original argument was not rooted in policy: you cited a bunch of problems with the state of sourcing, and then concluded that it fails the GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, that's not a valid conclusion: The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. It doesn't matter if Darkknight2149 knew if there were other sources; your AfD wasn't properly constructed, and it was fair for them to vote Keep ("procedural" keep is really strange to me; there's no real distinction there—it’s just a Keep vote with a procedural rationale). There is no problem with them "arguing against the [...] basis of the nomination" here. This AfD is not properly arguing for an AfD is an absolutely fair objection. It isn't Darkknight's responsibility to find sources for the article when there's an AfD because your AfD rationale was explicitly violated policy. I also don't love the new sourcing, but this never should have been an AfD. Just post on the Talk next time... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont try to do the AFD equivalent of WP:GRAVEDANCEing. If the article is kept, it would be because someone did the work of source hunting, not your bogus procedural keep nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:WIN is the appropriate one if you have to quote an essay as part of your criticism of Darkknight2149's behaviour. No blocked or retired users are involved in this AfD. Also, while I agree with ImaginesTigers's view that "procedural keep" is an odd position to advocate, Darkknight2149's rationale is not a fringe one as it is essentially the same as the one taken by another administrator here, and I quote: "AFD is Articles for Deletion. You don't go to AFD unless your goal is to delete the page. While an AFD may ultimately redirect a page, you cannot nominate as "Should be redirected". You have to make a case for deletion, which is not what anyone wants". Haleth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the point of my comment was not "Haha, you lose." My point was that, after I was rudely lampooned for correctly citing policy (quality of in-article sources is an illegitimate way of determining GNG), it turned out that the article had significant coverage all along, therefore demonstrating why this "Procedural keep nonsense" exists in the first place. When it comes to "it's unclear if you were even aware the coverage existed", that was actually my point. Policy isn't an arbritrary set of rules that exists for no reason. It has been discussed, tried, revised, and tested. Dark knight 2149 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to walk back into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I try to remember to ignore the WP:BAIT, but enough is enough. Everyone already knows that we measure our articles based on their WP:POTENTIAL and we don't need editors telling us that sources might exist. Everybody always says there might be sources and it doesn't make it true for every topic. The best way to prove sources exist is to find sources. I'm glad people thank me for finding sources and improving the article but a procedural vote did zero to help me. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY and it did nothing to stop this AFD. It resulted in zero sources being found. It resulted in zero people voting keep. And if I thought I could shut this AFD down by saying there was a procedural problem, I wouldn't have found sources, and people wouldn't have changed their votes, and the AFD would probably close as redirect. And that would have been the consensus. Besides I would rather see an AFD where I have a chance to add sources than fail to see redirect because it's not technically an AFD. Jumping back into this AFD makes me a bad example and I'll take blame for that. But my real point is to spend less time commenting back and forth in AFD and spend more time actually adding sources. Archrogue (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand deletion procedure. This idea that anyone can file nominations just because an article is currently poorly sourced and then demand that others "find sources" is a myth. The nominator is expected to determine if an article fails GNG before filing the nomination, and then cite the grounds for this within the rationale. WP:POTENTIAL is actually against the filing of this nomination, and more pertinent than that is WP:ATD, WP:DELREASON, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:RUBBISH, WP:IGNORINGATD, WP:NOTNOTABLE, and WP:ITSCRUFT. If anything was unhelpful, it was the filing of this AfD. This is a talk page, rewrite, template, or perhaps a redirect discussion issue, but not an AfD issue. I should add that a few editors here need some instruction on assuming bad faith. Dark knight 2149 22:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not going to reply any further though, because it's just getting heated and going in circles." Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:COMMONSENSE. This AfD is one of the situations reminding me why all of the notability guidelines are just guidelines, and not a single one of them, including WP:GNG, is a policy. IMO, ultimately, the depth and significance of coverage available are best judged by seeing if it is possible to build a proper full length detailed encyclopedic article based on the sources in question. That's manifestly the case here. Unlike so many other articles related to VG, this one is not fancraft and is not filled with OR. The 'Reception' section contains precisely the kind of informative critical analysis of the character that one would want to see. Nsk92 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the reception section contain enough analysis to pass the minimum standards of GNG, in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 El Cajon, California mayoral election

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

Non-notable mayoral election in a small suburb of San Diego. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. There is routine mill coverage all local elections have in a major media market, but nothing that demonstrates notability. The election was purely about local issues that do not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 11:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to notable in this municipal election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Martins Golf Club

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MILL golf course; only coverage seems to be directory listings, incidental mentions, and a couple of routine local interest pieces about potential housing and hotel developments. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as A7 [and G7] by User:Athaenara. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aashid

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Article recreated hours after being deleted under A7. John B123 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. Agree with the nom that this biography, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG as the subject is not a remarkable author. No coverage in reliable media found. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grover no 1: I have moved your comment from the AFD talk page to this page as this is the right place. Notability is not only about Booker prize, if no one other than you says that you are a remarkable author then chances of you not being a remarkable author are high. Wikipedia is not for self promotion or vanity. You can use Social media sites and blogs for that. --Walrus Ji (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the comment Walrus Ji replies to was deleted by the author. I also reverted their edit of Walrus Ji's reply. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teribly fails WP:AUTHOR WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. Solely aimed to promote the subject. RationalPuff (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I moved the article back from Draft:Aashid, unblanked the page, restored the AfD message and left a note for the author. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteThe subject that I have written about is not me and I have contacted him now.After seeing the deletion tag, he asked me to delete the page as to comply with Wikipedia rules.I am sorry for many reasons and I realised that I have no rights to write an article in Wikipedia as a new comer.After this I would only edit unlawful contents in Wikipedia and never write an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grover no 1 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grover no 1:. New comments are always placed at the bottom of the page. How are you related to Aashid? Were you asked to write about Aashid on Wikipedia? --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not related to that person and he didn’t ask me to write about him.I just found him on Instagram where his bio had a link of his book.I ordered it and have read it.I found that book interesting and talked to him via direct message.I asked him whether he wants to be featured in Wikipedia or not, the boy said that he had no objection until it didn’t cause any problems to him and if the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia.So, I researched and wrote about him. [[User:Grover no 1|Grover no 1]] ([[User talk:Grover no 1|talk]]). (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grover no 1, Ok, thank you for the reply. I am afraid both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCE requirement have not been met here. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millers Ranch, California

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

While this site had a post office for about three years, it seems to have been a ranch, not a community. Topos go back to the 1880s and don't show it. Newspapers.com results for Butte County are mainly about literal ranches, although an old 1862 one mentions the Hansonville po being moved to Miller's Ranch, although it doesn't say why. An 1895 newspaper result states that the Ruby ranch near Bangor was formerly known as Miller's Ranch, this appears to be the same thing. Gbooks results appear to be referring to literal ranches. Despite the post office and one newspapers result for two people being "of" Miller's Ranch, this doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-12 move to → User:Hog Farm/wastebasket, 2011-12 move to → Millers Ranch, Butte County, California

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

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

The result was soft delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PT Perkebunan Nusantara XI

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

Sugar cane company that does not meet WP:NCORP- the sources that are independent are describing WP:ROUTINE events. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Oubel

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

BLP that is WP:1E. If an article about the event was created, this could be merged into it. But this article is written and titled is solely a bio of the perp and fails per 1E. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I said in my summary on creating the page as I knew this would happen, this was a landmark case. Not for the way the murder happened, but the sentencing, which was the first to be given a life sentence in Spain. I'm sure 1E has an exception for being the first person to be sentenced to life in prison, for killing two little girls with a power saw; this is not an encroachment on well-earned privacy. If such a page should be titled about the crime and not the perpetrator, suggest a page move, not a deletion. There is a page about Henry John Burnett on the basis that he was the last man to be hanged in Scotland (the English equivalent is at Murder of John Alan West). I don't know enough about motives to delete, but on this Wikipedia there is a severe systemic bias against non-English speaking countries. You can put together a blow by blow of a murder in Nowhere, Montana with zero legal or cultural legacy, and it passes notability for "sustained coverage" because you cite every piece from the arrest to the verdict. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment, not another vote: A criteria on WP:BLP1E is that a person is low profile and likely to remain as such. I'm sorry, nobody can say that about someone who was the first to be sentenced to life imprisonment in a first-world country of 50 million people, for killing two little girls. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the long term media attention the case received. WP:1E does not forbid writing about notable perpetrators, renaming this article to something less recognizable wouldn't serve readers. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lamdmark case. Within WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and perhaps partially merge to Life imprisonment in Spain, where the novel aspects of the law's application can well be covered; the man himself is BLP1E. Sandstein 22:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, article is well sourced, and the events in it are very infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University meme pages

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

Article is WP:OR WP:SYNTH about a specific genre of Facebook page. Topic does not have SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:A7 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure original research Spiderone 11:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(HAPPY NEW YEAR!)} 15:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Taylor (fashion model)

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

A fashion model with no evidence found (in article, via search) of notability from independent, reliable sources. StarM 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Taherzadeh

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC Serv181920 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal House of Justice and leave the content history. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Thanks Serv181920 for the initiative. For the redirect might it be better to redirect to his section of the Baha'i literature page? Gazelle55 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle55, Redirect is fine.Serv181920 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doing a Books search shows me that the subject is quoted in numerous other books about the faith as a subject matter expert. Possibly more importantly, the subject's writing are cited very often on a Scholars search in numerous academic works on the faith. Further, as a past member of a select (nine, to be precise) member governing body of a large global faith appears to lend notability.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are tons of info about this person on the web. This article meets WP:GNG notability by having significant coverage. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER[reply]

According to WP:GNG a topic should receive significant coverage in "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article does not fulfills the criteria.Serv181920 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked him up on Google Scholar and his books have been cited 100+ times, but I think the average academic has more than that and they aren't automatically notable. I didn't find any academic articles about him. There could be non-academic sources that are WP:RS, but could those supporting inclusion point to them? He has certainly been quoted by Baha'is a lot but I don't think that proves notability.

And yes, he was elected to the Universal House of Justice (the leadership of the Baha'i Faith), but so are nine people every five years. That is not so notable given the Baha'i Faith has only ~1,000,000 active members according to Margit Warburg. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. He is a Baha'i scholar and only Baha'is cite his books. If that makes him a notable then he is.Serv181920 (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "but so are nine people every five years. That is not so notable given the Baha'i Faith has only ~1,000,000 active members" , hmmmmm, as an example of the problems with these sorts of arguments lets look at Alaska, population of less then 3/4 million, not all voters, and yet there are 60 wikinotable people (40 in house of reps, and 20 in senate) so being one of 9 people "governing" (religiously anyway) over a million may actually be notable, also see WP:CLERGY. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an author he fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:NBIO says - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This person fails WP:BIO also. WP:CLERGY is not applicable to the leaders of the Baha'i faith because they don't have clergies and these leaders don't perform any work of the clergy.Serv181920 (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous post was by Serv181920 (please remember to sign!). Coolabahapple, yeah good point about Alaska, I see that my point about the numbers isn't too relevant. Regarding WP:CLERGY (and WP:OUTCOMES more generally), correct me if I'm wrong but I think that indicates what has often happened rather than what should happen in any given case. I think WP:BASIC is more normative and it's not clear to me that Taherzadeh meets it (scrolling through Google results I see nothing but Baha'i sources and a few disgruntled ex-Baha'is on forums). I certainly doubt that most Universal House of Justice members meet WP:BASIC. My more general concern is the proliferation of Baha'i articles of dubious notability on Wikipedia, which I and others have discussed at length here. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gazelle55, I have signed the comment now. That's true most of them fails WP:BASIC and Baha'i population figures for most countries are highly inflated. Interested editors can check this table, please.Serv181920 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Universal House of Justice (Persian: بیت‌العدل اعظم‎) is the nine-member supreme ruling body of the Baháʼí Faith." - "Clergy are formal leaders within established religions.", looks similar to me, anyway acknowledge that they still need to meet WP:BASIC, which in this case is lacking. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason WP:CLERGY is complicated in this case is that the Universal House of Justice is a legislative body. Their collective decisions are authoritative but each person as an individual has no special authority. They like to point that out before making speeches. The lack of independent coverage of them as individuals seems to tilt towards deletion (in this case, redirect), as has been the case in Peter Khan, Kiser Barnes, Payman Mohajer, Firaydoun Javaheri, Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Douglas Martin, David Ruhe, and maybe others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree that redirect looks like the sensible course. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies notability criterion. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How he satisfies notability?Serv181920 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His notability comes from WP:AUTHOR, his works, especially revelation of Baha'u'llah, are often cited in secondary and tertiary sources that are about the history of the Baha'i faith (e.g. Encyclopedia Iranica: Varqa Waliallah, Ebn Asdaq, Journal of Baha'i Studies: here, here, here and many other places).Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarikhejtemai, thanks for contributing to the discussion. Could you clarify which of the four options under WP:AUTHOR you feel Taherzadeh meets? The Journal of Baha'i Studies is not a proper academic journal peer-reviewed by the mainstream scholarly community (there is a note about how this is not reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP). His writing is cited briefly in two short encyclopedia articles, but I think that is nowhere near the bar for any of the four options of WP:AUTHOR. Let me know if you feel I'm missing anything here. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle55 thanks for the question, based on Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources his works which were done in conjunction with Baha'i official international institutions (archives & research) are considered valid sources. Iranica has more references to his works, those were just examples, please see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Similarly (because of Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources) Journal of Baha'i Studies is a credible source. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarikhejtemai, I didn't know about that section of WP:RSE, so glad you've brought it to my attention. That said, it is about whether his work could be used as a source, which doesn't mean he is himself notable. I see from your examples that his work has been cited many times by Iranica, but I don't think this satisfies option #1 under WP:AUTHOR (and definitely not options #2-4). It says: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Getting cited by 10-15 academic works (or even 100) is not unusual—many professors have thousands of citations and yet probably aren't Wiki-notable, and my best guess is that almost all tenured profs have over 100 citations, and they're certainly not all notable. If we want to say Taherzadeh is notable for being cited widely by non-academic Baha'i sources, maybe it is possible, the guideline is pretty vague so I'm not sure how to interpret it. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This person is a Baha'i scholar, he is rather a hagiographer. All of his books are published by George Ronald, Oxford, a Baha'i publisher. Don't know how a Baha'i scholar who wrote a few books on Baha'i history becomes notable!? WP:BIO states "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Whatever he has written is purely for the mainstream Baha'is. He has also been criticized by the descendants of Baha'u'llah (the founder of the Baha'i Faith) due to his unfair approach towards Baha'i history. He also fails WP:AUTHOR.Serv181920 (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The relevant criteria here seem to be GNG and WP:PROF, and I'm seeing precious little discussion about the substance of either from people besides the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject of this article fails WP:PROF2 also. He does not fulfills any of the Basic Criteria or Specific Criteria. Tarikhejtemai, seems to be just forwarding his own POV without referring to any of the policies. Would appreciate if he answers Gazelle55.Serv181920 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Taherzadeh was not an academic and did not publish in academic venues (not even once, to my knowledge). I don't think there's any way to say he meets any of the options under WP:PROF. Nor does he meet WP:BASIC as discussed above, and for similar reasons he does not meet WP:GNG. It looks like all the editors who typically edit articles on the Baha'i Faith have agreed a redirect is the best option here (and for those not aware, there is usually a lot of disagreement about Baha'i articles). Various other editors have weighed in saying the article should be kept but I think their arguments have all been addressed. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comment again – Taherzadeh does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:PROF. He might meet WP:AUTHOR's first criterion by being cited a lot in non-academic Baha'i books. The guideline is vague so I can't really judge. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't care either way as long as the edit history doesn't disappear. He can pass notability with some more work and research but I'm not really interested in doing it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against efforts to merge/redirect the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Revenge

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

This article has minimal sources, and is largely reliant on game database entries - ABC Online just quotes MobyGames on the subject. I searched for additional sources through archive.org, and found nothing. This article essentially has only 3 solid sources, which I believe doesn't establish notability. No gaming magazines at the time seem to have covered it other than Commodore Computer Club, and the only retrospective sources are the Retro Gamer Article, and the article by ABC Online, which I feel doesn't really cover the game in a substantial way. Commodore 64 fansites and databases I've scoured also don't list any reviews or previews on the game. Waxworker (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The basic requirements are met. WP:GNG controls and although 3 RSes is not very many, the guideline only asks for "multiple sources": "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Speculating that no paper-based magazines ever covered the game is just guesswork. The internet does not in fact cover all paper sources. None of the other elements of the GNG are in question, so it's basically not a question of whether it's notable or not but rather whether it's notable enough. The greentext directs me to keep. -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One additional brief note: the discussion of MobyGames is nothing but a red herring. The Wikipedia article under discussion does not use the MobyGames quotation and it's obvious that the RS does not lose RS status simply by quoting a non-RS. Perhaps a better argument would be in relation to substantiality, but there simply isn't any relationship between the WP article and MobyGames. The MobyGames quote is never used or presented in the WP article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ABC and book cites are more than fine for WP:GNG. It's not like a Commodore game from the 80's is going to be profuse with NY Times and Wired articles. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:PAPERONLY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture per CZAR, seems like a good compromise considering the lack of substantial coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture. I wasn't planning to participate but I was really surprised by the above comments (and slight on the nom, who did due diligence), enough to look into the sourcing: First, the ABC "article" has nothing to do with the game. It quotes from MobyGames (user-submitted) in lieu of offering any new analysis for notability purposes. If anything, it indicates that the title can be mentioned in a section or article about Mozart's influence (hint hint). Second, the Retro Gamer "article" has exactly three sentences (!!) on the game as part of a list of games in a sidebar. Third, so essentially the case hinges on the article in the Italian hobbyist magazine Commodore Computer Club. But it too has little substance. Altogether, I'm not seeing how anyone can make the case that we can write a full encyclopedia article on this subject without devolving into original research from primary sources. No case for significant coverage has been made from these three existing sources. If any further print sources exist, in a field that has been very, very well archived compared to other disciplines, those sources are unscanned and unindexed and unknown to us. And we don't keep articles based on what might exist. There are a few different merge options as an alternative to deletion. czar 23:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see the slight to the nom, but if it came from me then I apologize. No offense was intended. The continuing concerns over MobyGames seems to be ill-founded. For the last four years the most trusted, gold standard, and unimpeachable political news sources on either side of the political divide have quoted Donald Trump ad nauseam and everyone knows that this doesn't bring the RSes' reputations down to the level of the president's level of reliability. If an unreliable source (or even just a source of unknown reliability) is used directly to support a claim in Wikipedia then that is a concern. But simply quoting an unreliable source does not invalidate the reliability of an RS that is commenting on the non-RS. I recognize that this is kind of WP:FLOGging the point, but there is 0.0% of the MobyGame quotation that appears in the Wikipedia article. No part of the MobyGames quote appears in the Wikipedia article - neither closely nor distantly paraphrased. I don't think the MobyGames quote has any relevance to this discussion at all. It's a distraction.
The substantiality/significance arguments are much better considered but unfortunately they rely on subjective characterizations. Do we characterize Retro Gamer's coverage as an article, subsection, paragraph, or brief mention? Here, for example, we see a brief mention in an article from GamesRadar (which is an RS). It is insignificant and I don't think it could be relied upon to support a claim of notability. But when Retro Gamer uses Amadeus Revenge as 1 of only 4 DIY construction software "gems", I find the question of coverage at least arguable. At the end of the day there is no guideline or policy defining significance of coverage. Indeed the same goes for the definition of "a full encyclopedia article". It's left to the subjective evaluations of those forming a (local) consensus. It's murky. It's tenuous. But I will agree with Czar that if consensus goes against keeping then alternatives are the obvious next step. Deletion here seems pointless. -Thibbs (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the block quote from MobyGames is really a minor point here and no one else is dwelling on it. (It's user-submitted so it could even be the verbatim official description for all we know.) The point is more that ABC as a source contributes no substance for our purposes beyond quoting that description from MobyGames.

re: "subjective characterizations": Discussing whether sources constitute significant coverage is the bread and butter of AfD, and the general notability guideline itself excludes brief mentions from that definition. A three-sentence mention in the most notable of magazines remains a three-sentence mention. If that is the disqualifying bar for an article, it proves more about the topic's lack of coverage than any editor could say. If Retro Gamer cites four "DIY construction software 'gems'", that point can potentially be noteworthy in an article about DIY construction software but doesn't signify that there is enough context to write dedicated articles on each of those four "gem" selections. For what it's worth, magazine sidebar content is often closer to filler material (look at me/keep reading!) than actual superlatives. czar 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"no one else is dwelling on it" - I've dwelt because the false claim persists. The nomination says "ABC Online just quotes MobyGames". That's false on its face. The portion that supports the claim on Wikipedia provides only substance from ABC staff rather than any part of MobyGames. The merge !vote 2 days later says "[ABC] quotes from MobyGames (user-submitted) in lieu of offering any new analysis". Again that is demonstrably false. Participants at this AfD can look at the portion used in Wikipedia and compare it to the ABC staff content and the MobyGames content. If it still seems as though the ABC content in WP is drawn from a user-submitted quotation on MobyGames then we find ourselves agreeing to disagree on the facts. The interpretations of things like the true meaning of sidebar content represent subjective opinions, of course, and naturally all participants are entitled to them. But I feel like the "ABC = MobyGames" canard is just factually incorrect and potentially confusing for other participants. -Thibbs (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

full quote from ABC

Amadeus Revenge

That's right, Mozart was made into a game for the Commodore 64. While this modern interpretation of Mozart may seem a far stretch of the imagination, funnily enough it’s an apt metaphor for what it’s like to wander through an orchestra mid-performance.

Here’s how Moby Games described it:

You are Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, trapped in some parallel reality. Your mind is filled with musicians and your "Concerto in C". Starting from the bottom you should break through to the top of your Sheet Music, which represents "Concerto in C". During your perilous travel, musicians of different kinds will want to kill you with the notes they've reproduced with their musical instruments. Each time the musician creates the note it is simulated with appropriate sound effect. You should avoid the notes and eliminate their sources gaining the points.

One can’t help but think that the limitations of technology back then forced everyone to be more creative.

What am I missing? ABC's full Amadeus Revenge section is quoted above. Remove its MobyGames block quote and it offers nothing of substance we can use for an encyclopedia article...

No one has mentioned the current article's prose or what it cites from ABC because it isn't relevant. We're talking about what the ABC source contributes to notability. Our article's current text has no bearing on whether ABC constitutes significant coverage. It doesn't even need to mention ABC at all for our purposes. czar 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and I think you've just hit it squarely. By considering ABC without the MobyGames (user-submitted) quote (which of course would invalidate ABC's reliability), we are able to come to a subjective conclusion about whether a subsection of the article is insufficient to demonstrate substantiality. Rather than dismissing ABC as a matter of fact (i.e. "MobyGames is a Non-RS ergo ABC is invalid") we allow subjective consideration to enter into the discussion. As I've said from my first (smalltext section) comment above, the substantiality (AKA significant coverage) prong is potentially worth discussing. Calling out MobyGames as a means to invalidate ABC as an RS is inappropriate here. MobyGames is entirely orthogonal to the WP article and its use in !votes above has muddied the waters needlessly. -Thibbs (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're arguing against something no one has said? Anyway, I think I already made my point about the substance of the ABC source clear, so I'm bowing out here. czar 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that the MobyGames quote is a copy violation. I brought up the MobyGames issue because I feel that the ABC online source doesn't offer any new insight into the game and doesn't establish notability, as other than one single sentence the article just quotes MobyGames. If you have to point out that the info provided by MobyGames isn't being sourced, then what are you sourcing from the ABC article? It's not like they reviewed the game – they're just mentioning that it exists. Waxworker (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my use of earwig's tool above may be confusing. I'm objecting to the discussion of MobyGames that appears in all non-keep !votes. The MobyGames quote neither constitutes 100% of the ABC source (per "ABC Online just quotes MobyGames") nor does its quotation in ABC taint ABC as a non-RS (per "[Non-RS] MobyGames [] in lieu of [] any [] analysis"). The ABC citation and quotation in the WP article represents an original idea and an original comment as developed by the ABC staff member who wrote it. It doesn't come from MobyGames so the repeated discussion of MobyGames' status as a non-RS is inapposite. It doesn't support the argument for deletion. I hope it won't form any part of the basis for any participant's conclusions. Maybe the argument is that the ABC source isn't alone sufficient to demonstrate notability, but the sufficiency here comes from the substance of the source (size, percent, significance, etc.) rather than its reliability. It would be a minor issue but for the fact that MobyGames has been evoked in literally every non-keep !vote from the original PROD to the AfD nomination to the merge vote. MobyGames is not something that is related to a rational argument against keeping. It's a bugaboo. Arguing the substance and significance of sources like ABC is fine. It needn't take on the false mantle of unreliability to which it is repeatedly tied above. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(And Waxworker: no hard feelings about any of this, I hope. I actually really admire your work. I agree with Czar that you have made a good effort to follow WP:BEFORE. If it seemed like I was questioning that, please dismiss it from your mind. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this at the request of User:Czar. I'll also recuse myself from closing it in the future since I went for keep with the suggestion of discussing merge on the appropriate talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical tilt towards keeping this, those arguing to keep have not, in my view, demonstrated the existence of substantive coverage in RS; and the burden to demonstrate its existence is really on them. Relisting for another week, but absent more participation, I can only see this as a "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we can forget about all of the "non-RS" discussion above as a distraction, the central issue would have to be substantiality. There is no definition for substantiality. Or to put it differently everyone has a personal definition for substantiality, but it's one of those "YMMV" scenarios. It is subjective and it's a matter of impression. There are several metrics that can be taken into account. For some the total word count is critical. For others it might be the percentage of the source dedicated to the topic. Some may consider section sizes as a liminal issue: If a book isn't devoted to the topic, a single chapter may still prove adequate... or not. The equivalent in a single article might be a subsection or depending on the circumstances only a single paragraph. But none of these metrics provide the definitive answer. At a certain point the argument becomes ridiculous. I would hope that a single sentence in the middle of a long article or a mere namedrop mention would never be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. But where to draw the line between substantial and unsubstantial is a personal decision. See also: The Mzoli's Meats arguments, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a hundred AfDs every day—we have a working understanding of significant coverage and it's more than the exceedingly little that has been written in sources about this. Total word count is not a measure of significant coverage—it has to come down to what we can write about the topic, especially given the well-known fluffiness of games journalism. I invite the other participants to read the sources. @HocusPocus00 and Zxcvbnm There's no potential future beyond a permastub for this topic based on the dearth of coverage, hence why merger to an existing article is a suitable alternative to deletion. czar 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't spend much time at AfD in general so if there is a working understanding that is based on widespread consensus then I may have to revise my view, but if it's just a matter of custom then I'd err on the side of pillars, policies, and guidelines. I think it's worth noting that neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:STUBDEF draw a solid line between substantial and unsubstantial coverage. SIGCOV places the line somewhere between book-length history and a brief mention in a single sentence. I trust that any neutral person would agree that the topic of this AfD falls somewhere between those two. I think the lack of a definition here is intentional. STUBDEF is interesting in that it discusses "breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia" but again it fails to pin down the dividing line except in subjective terms and its use of the word "expected" rather than "required" again suggests deliberate ambiguity. I suppose I go too far to say that the absence of a hard rule speaks volumes, but to me it seems clear that subjective consensus (whether or not its subjectivity is recognized) is the only way to achieve an answer. FWIW again, I agree that Merge is a better option here than deletion. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Darnell

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; she’s only had one significant role as Penelope in Trading Places. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage from secondary sources. LeBron4 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Java Hurricane 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Line (1996 film)

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

The article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding sourcing and I get the impression that there's likely more out there, it's just not on the internet. In any case, this has earned one of the nastiest reviews I've ever seen TV Guide make for a film. Normally their reviews are kind of borderline, as they're more synopsis than review, but whomever wrote this wanted to make sure that there was no doubt as to their opinion on the film. I mean, I've never seen them use the phrase "car-wash tramp" before. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Austin Chronicle review in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reviews added after the AfD are just about enough to warrant a keep for me Spiderone 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a notable film, with a notable cast. Eric (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above keep rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting

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

The current article refers to a non-notable UFO sighting in 1952 attributed to pilots. Attempts to find independent, reliable sources reporting this fringe "event", per WP:FRIND, have failed, with all available sources failing WP:RS, being sensationalist blogs, pro-pseudoscience sites, and so forth. There is both insufficient substance and reliable support to merit an encyclopedia entry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nash-Fortenberry_UFO_sighting 5Q5|^✉ 14:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge So many UFO books have included this as filler that it creates an illusion of notability, however the subject is really unknown outside of the UFOlogy bubble. There is one passing mention in an article on the local angle [21] and one including it as a "for instance" passing mention [22] on the general subject of UFOs. These really don't justify a stand alone article, however I support keeping it (with any mergeable content) at List of reported UFO sightings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. At first I was going to agree with LuckyLouie to delete and merge, but then I did a Google search for site:newspapers.com nash fortenberry. This UFO sighting made national news across the United States in 1952. There are plenty of serious mainstream newspaper articles to cite. The article is just waiting for someone to add them. Also, this discussion should be added to Aviation proposed deletes where other UFO articles have been added in the past. There may be pilot editors who want a say. 5Q5|^✉ 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First officer William B. Nash and second officer William H. Fortenberry had valid sightings of up to 8 coin shaped objects on approach to Norfolk, Virginia. This event involved highly unusual maneuverability, unexplained rapid acceleration and estimated speed conservatively stated at 12,000 mph. Both Nash and Fortenberry were interviewed the next morning by Air Force intelligence officers. Both pilots had served in the Navy and had received intensive instruction in aircraft identification. An effort was made to debunk the sighting, but in the end the Air Force declared the incident unexplained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Roth (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in support of the excellent search provided above by 5Q5. Certainly notable in its day, and a small part of a larger whole of UFO sightings. Something I think an encyclopedia would benefit from.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable - does not pass WP:GNG outside of fringe sourcing, the only article was a short UP article which was picked up by a number of newspapers on the wire and had no sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: In 1952, the story about this eventual Project Blue Book commercial airline case went out in the United States on two wire services United Press (today's UPI) and International News Service (INS). I counted search results for 47 mainstream U.S. newspapers in my newspapers.com search above, assuming none was a repeat. Outside of UFO publishing, here are examples of sustained coverage presented in or published by mainstream sources over the decades, thus qualifying for notability under WP:GNG. 5Q5|^✉ 14:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1968: Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968 by physicist James E. McDonald via Princeton University link, pdf
1992: The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Indiana, Monday, September 7, 1992
2014: Sufffolk News-Herald, Virginia, March 19, 2014.
~~2017: Air & Space magazine, January 2017.~~
2019: Daily Press, Virginia, August 2, 2019 (Tribune Publishing), founded in 1896.

The two wire stories you discuss are almost exactly the same from paper to paper - the only difference is light editing (removal of paragraphs to fit size dimensions). I'm not sure what to make of the statement, which appears self-published. The Indianapolis article discusses the sighting in a single sentence. I cannot find any mention of the sighting in the Air and Space article. I can't access one of the other articles (daily press) and the Suffolk News-Herald is probably fine. I appreciate you providing sources, but I still don't think this is notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the Air & Space article came up in search results and I briefly looked at and thought it was written by the son of the pilot in this case, who is mentioned in the A & S article, but it looks like it's about a different incident so I've struck it out here. I've never edited the Nash-Fortenberry article but if the UFO community doesn't care enough to monitor and fight for such articles, then I'm not going to spend any additional time doing their work. But I will leave my vote as it is and I support editor Luckylouie's position to keep it in the List of reported UFO sightings. 5Q5|^✉ 12:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is another non-notable nonsense. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As 5Q5 said, this UFO sighting gained plenty of traction in its day, and was even investigated by the air force and classified as "unexplained". https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/AD0688332.pdf https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/project-blue-book-unknown-case-files-complete-list/ Pladica (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2020 (AST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SportingFlyer. There's barely enough outside-the-bubble reporting to warrant a mention in another page, and definitely not enough to support a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per 5Q5. Article very much fits WP:GNG. Some delete votes seem more oriented around the subject being 'nonsense' than whether the article itself is. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software

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

Poorly referenced comparison table listing features of mostly non-notable open source software packages. Of the seven footnotes here, very few are actually directly verifying facts about the individual packages in the list in a notability-making way: three are clarifying notes rather than references, one is a package's own self-published content about itself, and one is just about the idea of using Zoom to make music and is here solely to support the statement that Zoom isn't ideal for that purpose and these other alternatives are better. And while two of the sources would help to support an article about the overall concept of remote music performance software (which if we have one yet I can't find because it isn't at that title), but aren't doing much to actually support a comparison table of the individual packages, since they don't really verify any of the facts in the table.
And furthermore, only one of these packages actually has a Wikipedia article to link to -- when I first found the page, most of the entries were being offlinked to their own websites in lieu of Wikipedia articles, which had to be stripped as an WP:ELNO violation. So it's mostly a list of non-notable things, which was clearly intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages -- and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was concerned about this article from the very start, hence the tags. I decided to give it a chance as I could see it was being worked on. A list with only one notable entry has no navigational purpose and the sources fail to establish notability. The subtle promotion is a clear example of what Wikipedia is not as well. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPROVE or MERGE There is also NINJAM, which has a Wikipedia article. We could move this table to the Networked_music_performance page. Not sure about YouTube videos, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiNkzClzh98 might contain some information. Or https://ksltv.com/449043/socially-distancing-for-musicians-a-quick-guide-to-low-latency-audio/? M0zohow (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the table to Networked_music_performance would be a good idea if we think a standalone page is not warranted. The table is directly related to the subject of that page. gilgongo (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic intention of this page is to document a type of software that shares a common purpose in allowing musicians to play together online with low/no latency. As such, this is a specialised area (or subtaxa) of software development fundamentally different in purpose to that of video conferencing such as Zoom, for which latency isn't a crucial condition. On the issue of notability of the software listed, this is in keeping with WP:CSC ("created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles"). So User:bearcat assertion that "it's mostly a list of non-notable things" needs to be clarified. As to "intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages" then I would say that many other lists such as Comparison_of_Linux_distributions or Comparison_of_file_comparison_tools would be the same. As to the issue of citations, we can work to improve those. gilgongo (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to post here, as I am unfamiliar with your process. Not sure I even remember how to sign this properly. But I was very happy to find the article, the comparison is quite useful for someone trying to choose between these programs. Several of the programs listed deserve their own pages. Please give them time to be created. This is just as relevant as other software comparison articles. I hope to contribute to improve its quality, but I find Wikipedia difficult to edit, and its process intimidating. (I've contributed for 15 years.) Thanks. Davipo (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Preface: This is my personal opinion - I am a drummer and I am not affiliated to any of the platforms given in the table. The obvious purpose of the table is to provide unbiased information (derived from personal experience, thus it is not easy to cite valid 2nd level sources) to musicians who cannot currently meet personally due to the corona pandemic. It appears to not propose or advertise any particular software but tries to list the properties of known platforms so as to be able for a new user (musician) to check if they can fulfill the platfom's requirements (and the links to the single platforms appear to be merely meant to help finding additional information, not to create network traffic). E.g. my electronic drumset outputs digital audio only with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, so I cannot use Jamulus directly as this platform only supports 48 kHz. Of course there is room for improvement in the table: The platform rows should be sorted alphabetically based on the "Name" column and the (many) question marks should be replaced by actual values - this is a call to the owners of the single platforms. And from my PoV the table shall not be merged or moved elsewhere because it is supposed to contain crucial information not easily found otherwise (and it has already been linked by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networked_music_performance). To judge if an open source software package is non-notable should be left to the reader. Drummer1154 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When looking precisely for the kind of information shown here (because several other people had asked me related questions), I was grateful to find this page. Some of the entries listed might appear 'non-notable' at present because it is a field developing rapidly and recently due to the pandemic, and certainly it can be improved, but I would dispute that it serves a primarily promotional purpose, and I suspect deleting it would merely result in someone trying to recreate a similar page in a few months' time. Merging it with networked music performance would merely make that page more unwieldy, and likewise probably result in someone splitting it off again somewhere down the line. Hence better to attach tags, suggest improvements, create stubs (at least) for packages with significant numbers of users and active development (such as JamKazam), and continue working on it. Ozaru (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks trivial at first glance but a deeper look shows that this subject warrants the article. Santosh L (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been added and arguments for keeping this page (relevance) can be seen in the discussion above. The claim that these software packages are "non-notable open source software packages" is not true for Sonobus (see commit history: ^[1] and issues tab^[2] for activity, do a google search) Jamulus (see commit history and issues page, multiple articles which are already linked in the page and google page). JamKazam: See JamKazam forum^[3] and multiple articles on Google. SoundJack and a lot of other mentioned software packages is part of DigitalStage: ^[4] which seems to be supported by Swiss and German officials. M0zohow (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Fong

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

Much time has passed since the previous AfD discussion on this article, but it remains a stub. After the passage of time, it appears the basis for notability may have been ephemeral, and what we have is an article about a person who had a job. The journalistic coverage mentioned in the article and the previous AfD discussion do not appear to meet the criteria in WP:BASIC - she was profiled a couple times as a businessperson, and that's really all. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The passage of time since the first AfD has confirmed that notability has remained sub-par. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The company that she founded failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

And? What does that have to do with notability policy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of her notability are based on her founding the company. It failed. Founders of failed companies are not de facto notable WP:Corp, nor are those companies. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - there is little enough evidence that Ms Fong did, indeed, go on to save the world... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire because all those sources still exist. Notability always increases monotonically because coverage can only make it go up, never down. There is coverage now in books such as this and fresh coverage online which seems to be more negative in tone. We should record failures as well as successes so that our coverage is balanced and realistic. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability, itself, is not temporary (see WP:NOTTEMPORARY) however the nominator has every right to bring it up for discussion and is not wrong to do so. The sources provided do still exist, as stated above. There are others when doing a WP:BEFORE search, some of which are provided here, as is the case with the book. Ultimately, the current condition of the article, being a stub, is immaterial to the notability of the subject. AfD is not article cleanup nor should an article be deleted simply because it is incomplete in the eyes of the nominator. Likewise, the success, or lack thereof, of the subjects endeavors does not take away from said notability, once gained. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NEXIST and the following sources: [23], [24], [25] (in French). I have picked three of the better ones, but there are plenty of sources out there to demonstrate meeting WP:BASIC. It doesn't matter if Fong ever saves the world, media coverage exists of her attempts and her company's failure. If this discussion leans delete, it should instead be redirected to LightSail Energy. Samsmachado (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The CBC source is about LightSail, not Fong. The Technology Review article is an interview of Fong about LightSail. Le Point profiles her only in relation to the company. FalconK (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to LightSail Energy, which is what the coverage and links above are really about. Reywas92^Talk 20:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm borderline between saying keep or merge to LightSail Energy -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep As in my opinion, being on Forbes's 30 under 30 list is notable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced, Obviously passes GNG, not sure what the nom's standards are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm applying the principle of WP:1E here. Everything written about her is either about the company, or in relation to the company. Also, the Forbes lists definitely do not imbue a person with notability; while I acknowledge this is controversial there are several cases where we have rejected the Forbes 30 under 30 lists as per se evidence of notability, especially in articles of people notable for only one thing in their career. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to run this for another week to gain some more insight. Especially with User:FalconK's comment at the end on a "keep" comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per everything stated above, but this article needs to be cleaned up with some new sources and more current info. There are many notable sources specifically about this person. Jooojay (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Others above have said this above only for the sources to be about something else. Joojay, are there any specific sources you're relying on here? FalconK (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the Keep votes here are cruel in effect, although I understand completely that they are not intended to be so. The subject's commercial enterprise LightSail Energy has been a failure and she has no notability unrelated to it. If the BLP is kept, it rubs the subject's nose in her failure and keeps the memory of it alive. I think it would be more charitable to delete the BLP and also LightSail Energy. In this way the subject will be left to make a clean start, at least so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MutualArt.com

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

Not notable, no significant coverage. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Artist Pension Trust, which acquired it. This merits a sentence there. As an acquisition I don't think there's anything that could make this article more than a stub, ever. FalconK (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcon Kirtaran: If I'm not mistaken, Mutualart acquired (or it may have founded) the APT. Part of the problem here (hopefully this will be corrected in the AfD process) is that the connection and history of the entities "Artist Pension Trust", "Mutualart.com", "mutualart" and "Mutualart Group" is not clear. It is certainly not correctly or clearly stated in our articles. Possibly (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I found a snippet in Google Books of a 1984 Economist article saying that "MutualArt" founded the Artist Pension Trust in 1984. Possibly (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it looks like there should only be one page for all the related companies. If it isn't Artist Pension Trust, then that one should be merged into whatever the page ends up being. FalconK (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will be OK with one article on Mutual Art, the parent company, and one on the Artist Pension Trust. I have been expanding the article and am having no trouble finding good sourcing on MutualArt and mutualart.com. More in my !vote below. Possibly (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to MutualArt Group. I have done some sleuthing and have now updated the history section to reflect what is really going on. The sequence of companies was "Mutual Art" first, which was founded to operate the Artist Pension Trust, both in 2004. In 2008 Mutual Art started a web site, mutualart.com. There's lots of in-depth coverage on this 2008 MutualArt/Mutualart.com development (I am adding more as I work on it). Finally, in 2016 the Artist Pension Trust merged with Mutual Art and the new entity is called "MutualArt Group".

Given the excellent coverage on Artist Pension Trust, it obviously merits it own article. My !vote to ke*p this article (Mutual Art) rests on the fact that the Mutual Art is the parent group and there seems to be lots of independent coverage of its work (example). Its website seems to have been an innovator. The current name of the article should be changed toMutualArt Group or similar, and include coverage of mutualart.com. Possibly (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – the sources added by Possibly seem more or less undigested press releases and/or more about the Artist Pension Trust than about MutualArt.com. A truly independent secondary source exclusively about MutualArt.com seems to be missing. I'd support a merge to the Artist Pension Trust (APT) article, if that were the name after the merger. It isn't. The name of the company after the merger is MutualArt Group of which both APT and MutualArt.com are brands or branches. How quaky the business model is has been highlighted in independent secondary sources. Neither Artist Pension Trust nor MutualArt.com should be stand-alone articles. Both can be redirects to MutualArt Group, but as long as that article doesn't exist, MutualArt.com should simply be deleted. It is a commercial website with little independent coverage, despite the florid language in its press releases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: What you are suggeting is not entirely clear. You say delete but then say "Artist Pension Trust nor MutualArt.com should be stand-alone articles. Both can be redirects to MutualArt Group. So rename? Possibly (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Neither ...". Please don't misquote me. I didn't say "rename" about the article under discussion here (i.e. MutualArt.com). The only article eligible to be renamed to MutualArt Group is imho Artist Pension Trust, but neither of these two is under discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left out the closing quotation mark and the first word. You say delete but then say "neither Artist Pension Trust nor MutualArt.com should be stand-alone articles. Both can be redirects to MutualArt Group." I am still not clear on what it is you are suggesting. Anyway. Possibly (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete MutualArt.com. If the hints I gave regarding a possible solution (which would mean that MutualArt.com could possibly be turned into a redirect without moving it anywhere) are incomprehensible, then, yes, truly, I mean "delete". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK you are clearly saying delete this one. But also saying "redirects to MutualArt Group." conflicts with that idea. Possibly (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? MutualArt Group doesn't exist: it is not possible to redirect to a non-existing article. I oppose *moving* MutualArt.com to MutualArt Group while the MutualArt.com article is about near to nothing. The rest is about the current Artist Pension Trust article, which is not under discussion here... but which is also no longer a current company name (so moving that one to its current company name seems OK to me, but that is not under discussion here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I moved Artist Pension Trust to MutualArt Group, to get you out of your misery. Now I can change my !vote to redirect/merge MutualArt.com to MutualArt Group. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no misery. It is too bad that you did not bother to update the lede or content of the newly named MutualArt Group, which now makes very little sense. Possibly (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your "I don't understand" routine was becoming a pretty miserable sight... Anyhow, whether I misappreciated that or not, any issues with the lead section or content of the MutualArt Group article should be raised first at Talk:MutualArt Group. Not here, neither at a user talk page. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Little or no indication of web notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Oil-Gas Magazine

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

After being created by a user with a likely conflict of interest in 2007, there has been minimal improvement or update, and there is no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this magazine per WP:ORG. The only source is relatively recently added and is a LinkedIn profile, and I cannot see many others available. ~ mazca ^talk 15:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 15:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 15:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the only sources are the magazine's website and its LinkedIn page, and the website was last updated in 2018. I don't see any independent coverage. There are references to it though (e.g. [26]), it certainly did exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 1273

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. No journal coverage of this star individually or as one of a small number of objects, no significant popular coverage, not naked-eye, and no historical notability. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into List of stars in Phoenix per nom. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HD 12846 seems to fail WP:NASTRO as well; suggest adding to the nomination. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that. I created a new discussion. Keeps things simpler, avoids trainwrecks. Different constellation, might confuse the outcome. Lithopsian (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I updated the article. HD 1273 is one of the 6 spectroscopic binary stars that was studied in detail by Bernard W. Bopp et al in 1970: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/147/4/355/2602844 ExoEditor 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hardly naked-eye at 6.8 magnitude. Having appeared in a single paper is not enough, WP:NASTRO requires "significant commentary" on the object, and the paper provided doesn't say anything about this star specifically. The "notability" of the star comes only from being G-type and nearby, but there are hundreds of stars like this. Tercer (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comment. I thought that WP:NASTRO criteria allowed for stand-alone articles if any of the 4 criteria are met. I would appreciate if the article isn't merged (I have spent quite some time searching information about it). ExoEditor 16:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that WP:NASTRO states that any one of the 4 criteria is sufficient to establish notability, but which of the 4 criteria are you claiming is satisfied, and why?PopePompus (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The star is visible to the naked eye according to the astronomical magnitude scale: http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html ExoEditor 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude 6.5 has been used as the consensus practical naked-eye limit in Wikipedia (eg. first hit in Google and ironically another comet page), and also the cutoff for the Bright Star Catalogue. If you want to nitpick to try and squeeze in a non-notable object on a technicality, you might force WP:NASTRO to be tightened up (see discussion). See also Limiting_magnitude#In_naked-eye_visibility, which gives perhaps the most widespread limit: "6th magnitude". Lithopsian (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NASTRO should be updated to specify this 6.5 consensus value explicitly. One should not have to do a google search to figure out what a statement in WP:NASTRO means.PopePompus (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. WP:NASTRO only states that satisfying one of those criteria means the article is probably notable. To quote: "For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is." Praemonitus (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultimately, we should look for reliable sources (non-catalogs) that mention the object to ascertain whether it merits a Wikipedia page or not. Seeing none, it should be deleted. ExoEditor and PopePompus, see note 1 of WP:NASTCRIT: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects. If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline, especially if it lacks evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether. We are missing the "significant" part here, hence the article should be deleted. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. significant coverage is best understood in terms of the possible available coverage in its field, and these sources provide it. We shouldn't put too much weight on the specific wording of a guideline; and the fact that it is only a guideline means it does not always apply--that there are relatively frequent circumstances where it's irrelevant (if they were rare, IAR would do it) , and I think it is the consensus of those working on subjects like this to judge as in the earlier keeps. The consensus gives the interpretation. There would be nothing easier than to object to the keeping or deletion of 80% of WP articles by interpreting the guidelines in ways not appropriate to the subject. I know there are some who would liketo do exactly that, but we are NOT an abridged encyclopedia. If we cover astronomy, we have to cover what's important to astronomy. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: none of the provided references satisfy WP:GNG. The closest is Bopp et al. (1970), but all that gives is some observational data. However, Catchpole (1972) pushes it closer to notability. I'm not clear why that wasn't included. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that paper, I wasn't aware of it. I just included it in the article. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:HEY. Check out the new references, etc, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no demonstrated notability for this object to justify a stand-alone article. Aldebarium (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 12846 for my opinion. Kepler-1229b talk

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Nagarajan

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

BLP of a career civil servant sourced to run of the mill announcements of large numbers of civil servants to new posts, hence mostly passing mentions. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Just being a IAS does not warrant a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalPuff (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holder of a civil service position at a level that does not convey notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "essej/sonobus". GitHub. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
^ "Sonobus issues". GitHub.
^ "JamKazam Forums - Jamkazam Forums". forum.jamkazam.com. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
^ "Features". digital-stage.org. Retrieved 2021-01-07.

[1] "Top 100 Singles, Week Ending 1 January 2021". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 1 January 2021.

[2] "Official Scottish Singles Sales Chart Top 100". Official Charts Company. 2020-11-13. Retrieved 2020-11-23.

[3] "SHANE CODD | full Official Chart History". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 2020-11-27.

[4] "Rotation playlist of capital fm london as of 1 january". Capital FM London.

[5] "Irish DJ & Producer Shane Codd Releases Official Music Video for Debut Single". IMRO. 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2021-01-01.

[6] ttps://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint/vol3/kd1a/kd1a.htm

[7] ttps://bahai-library.com/terry_cole_panopticon

[8] "essej/sonobus". GitHub. Retrieved 2021-01-07.

[9] "Sonobus issues". GitHub.

[10] "JamKazam Forums - Jamkazam Forums". forum.jamkazam.com. Retrieved 2021-01-07.

[11] "Features". digital-stage.org. Retrieved 2021-01-07.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]