Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian microlight aircraft competition

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It is not a competition (though that may be what they call it in India), it is a call for competitive bids to procure 110 microlight aircraft for their cadet corps... eight years ago! Barely newsworthy; definitely not encyclopedia-worthy. Normal Op (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is the only applicable guideline for something like this Spiderone 20:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This being a separate article feels like a bit of a stretch. Geschichte (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2020 (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. ST47 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth-On

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

Non notable manufacturer. Fails notability guidelines lacking reliable third party sources. Tinton5 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following article is included and the company appears to have a similar notoriety to Smooth-On, Air Products & Chemicals. In addition, the following listings seem less cited Burroughs & Chapin, Malheur Bell and White Weld & Co.. Because Smooth-On exhibits similar notoriety, it seems like it would pass this criteria.Hondo2160 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with HighKing. Although the article contains sources, they are all run of the mill churn of the "Company X acquired Company Y" variety. There was nothing better that I could find. Reyk _YO! 12:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following entries, Air Products & Chemicals, Burroughs & Chapin, Malheur Bell and White Weld & Co., it seems like these entries possess similar or less notoriety based on their sources.Hondo2160 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources were added to the article.Hondo2160 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (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) 02:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Merlion Cup

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

No reliable source for such tournament. At best there may be a planned Merlion Cup for this year but didn't push through presumably due to the pandemic. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lives long enough without references, and no actual event. the year is closing too. possibly cancelled for the year due to covid even if planned. – robertsky (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, cannot find any sources about it being planned in the first place, let alone it happening or being postponed. Giant Snowman 10:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless sources can be found to support that this went ahead or was at least planned and is notable, I can't see any alternative but to delete Spiderone 10:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as it's a surprise it wasn't deleted sooner with no references to link it back too. HawkAussie (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2020 (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. ST47 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GCatholic.org

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

Although the site is a common source for Bishop and Diocese-related articles here on Wikipedia, I wasn't able to estabilish WP:NOTABILITY of the subject from a swift Internet search alone, and the article currently presents inappropriate sources for determining such, one being an Alexa page and the other citing the website directly. Alternatively, a redirect to Salt + Light Television is possible, of which the site's creator seems to work for. Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability in question. fails WP:WEB. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs some sourcing that it is used as a reference by news sources and authors. Linked to quite a few wikipedia English pages (~2500). Better to redirect if decided. 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

seems to be one of the top sources for info on Catholic bishops and dioceses used in various wikipedias

Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. If there are sources that establish notability, they should be added to the article — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether is is used here and there is nowhere near relevant. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccerway etc. The sources in the article don't talk about the website as such, at all. Geschichte (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to list the links as support for notability just that it is used as a reliable source by numerous wikiprojects. The fact that it is used by numerous newspapers as a reliable source adds to its notability (there are books that use it as well). I kind of look at it like a newspaper (where many of the smaller newspapers have no citations supporting their notability but numerous wikilinks as they are used as a reliable source). Anyhow, I would prefer to redirect it rather than delete it and then maybe add a little to the author's mention so people can get at least a little idea of the source. anyhow, I put a note on the wikiproject Catholicism page maybe someone has some more input or sources. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2020 (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) 02:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Eck's sequence

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

Declined PROD. I agree with the PRODder that this isn't a sufficiently notable topic for an article. The sources offered (on the talk page and in the article) basically boil down to an OEIS entry (for which Sloane was interviewed about in a Youtube vid) plus various WP:UGC. This doesn't seem to be enough, with no apparent serious study or even popular press accounts. Probably WP:TOOSOON at best. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this particular integer sequence is almost nonexistent in academic literature. The only coverage of it is in this conference proceedings about the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences itself. There's no independent WP:GNG coverage either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the PROder and the nominator. Reyk _YO! 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I would expect a sequence that OEIS names and tags as nice to be notable, but I can't find anything else about this in Google Scholar or MathSciNet (searching both for its name and for its OEIS index number). So we don't have the multiple in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked into this when I noticed it was PRODed, and I didn't find much about it — an OEIS entry, a few ancillary items, and various WP:UGC, as the nominator says. I've no objection to writing about it within some other article, if an appropriate place exists, but I don't think the coverage exists to make a wiki-notability case. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; no suitable merge/redirect target either Spiderone 21:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be "just another sequence" without any substantive scholarly discussion or interest beyond WP:UGC-type sources such as user-generated algorithms to generate terms. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try looking up "Van Eck Sequence" at Bing.com and in the other links. Rather than the possessive. GIGO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at both. Looking at the non-possessive form again right now, I still don't see anything significant besides the conference proceedings by Sloane. Otherwise just blogs, Math Stack Exchange, Numberphile, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also searched by the OEIS number and didn't turn up anything additional. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2020 (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. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) is marked historical and at any rate not a guideline, therefore does not represent community consensus. Sandstein 17:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Samayoa

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

We have consistently held that winning a national beauty contest is not in and of itself a sign of notability. We need significant sourcing. The sourcing here is a non-relable webpage and the web site of the competition she won, this is not the level of sourcing to show a passing of GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tried to find sources myself; Guatemalan sources are available but do not appear sufficient for WP:GNG. See these [1] [2] [3]; nothing about her achievements or to suggest that she is a notable person. All trivial coverage about some Instagram photos. Spiderone 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Pack Lambert pageant winner criteria says "Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are likewise generally presumed to be notable. Certain independent national-level or supra-national pageants such as Miss America and Miss Europe, by virtue of long establishment and widespread coverage, are also presumed to indicate notability in winners." — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was debated long and hard and there was very strong opposition to adopting this criteria. There was no widespread support for it, and if it is now the understood standard it is against the clear consensus on Wikipedia that we need to follow sourcing and should not decalre pageant winners default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That pageant criterion is poorly written, there’s no inherent notability. Wording should follow NBIO which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The key is the does not guarantee bit. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and adjust wording of local N guideline to conform with community-wide NBIO. Recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Allison Baeyens demonstrates there is no consensus for automatic notability for pageant winners. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2020 (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) 02:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Greenstein

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST. Just being a presenter is not enough for an article. Less Unless (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; a WP:BEFORE search revealed only primary sources and social media Spiderone 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that she's on the road to notability as a journalist, it's perhaps too early in her career for an article to be created. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assück

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

non-notable. WP:NBAND. Coverage limited to obscure sources. Coverage in respectable source like Rollingstones is only in passing. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I have found reliable sources: Allmusic biography, Retrospective: Assück's "Anticapital" is 15 Minutes of Grindcore History - Decibel Mag. But yeah, that's it. The rest of the Google results are the usual trash like retail sites, blogs and streaming service links/youtube videos. I don't consider Metal Storm as a reliable source in this case because it only lists the most trivial stuff about the band like the year when they formed and when they split up, a genre and their discography. Albums does not have been reviewed on the site, just the track listing is present which does not establish notability either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the AllMusic and Decibel magazine coverage there is also coverage in Terrorizer referenced on the article (exercising WP:AGF as that is offline content) so there is enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evaluating the references in the article, MusicMight is not a reliable source per WP:A/S but Allmusic is. Terrorizer is not listed on WP:A/S either way but I assume they are reliable per the masthead on their website. Decibel is reliable per WP:A/S. I think these sources allow Assuck to pass WP:BAND C1. Z1720 (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (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 17:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Blau

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

His renditions of the national coat of arms are on public display but they are not a significant body of work. No signif.. third party criticism, besides a promotional itnerview with the artist DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Blau's work is in countless works of public art in Australia - besides the Parliament House coat of arms (which a quick Google search indicates has had coverage/criticism in several different sources), he has several other works of public art in Canberra (including the "Time Thief" sculpture in New Acton) and other cities/towns, he also did interior work on St Patrick's Cathedral in Parramatta, the wall sculpture on the Supreme Court of NSW Building, and his work has been canvassed in the Craft Arts International journal. This is not a run of the mill artist, this is someone whose work adorns one of the most prominent buildings in Australia. There is enough here to meet GNG and the article should be kept and improved, not deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as DGG says, it is hard to find coverage. However he may meet NARTIST by virtue of the parliament building work being well known. There is a bad picture of it here on Commons. I am in the neutral zone at the moment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nominator, i couldn't find enough coverage online that could justify notability. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with others about an apparent scarcity of written critical commentary, but the subject's work can be referenced, and the commissioned works in Parliament House, Canberra, outside the University of Canberra, at St Patrick's Cathedral, Parramatta and in the NewActon precinct seem to me sufficient for WP:NARTIST criterion 4. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Deus et lex. Complies with WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A genuine artist type. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be some scarcity of information to date, but that is not to say that more information won't come to light in the future. This artist has been commissioned for some notable works, there is a possibility, albeit low, there may be more in the future. Bowralbaby^Talk 9:55, 29 October 2020 (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 17:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Bailey

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

WP:NPEOPLE minor role character. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NACTOR provision 1. Melmann 09:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question @Melmann: which "significant" roles in notable show/movies? I skimmed through the list on her page, but I'm seeing minor roles. Graywalls (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I am interpreting 'significant roles' mentioned in WP:NACTOR as roles which have been deemed worthy of note by industry or media or other reliable sources. I can see multiple nominations for as a supporting actor awards, which to me meets the definition of 'significant roles'. If we choose to interpret 'significant roles' as meaning lead or main actor (in terms of screen time) in a movie, then no, notability is not met. But it seems to me that such interpretation render all character actors non-notable. Melmann 10:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might buy that these nomination for roles were in and of themselves showing note, but we only have primary source coverage of them, not secondary source coverage, so I do not think it shows significance, so actor notability is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We used to have lots of articles about child actors but the consensus has changed so that we treat them like adults, requiring significant coverage of their roles, with a tendancy to delete if they have borderline notability. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The suggestion that these roles were significant is not borne out by any sources that are present either in the article or the linked articles about the individual media so fails WP:NACTOR. No sources presented or apparent that would sustain WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:31, 26 October 2020 (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. I would not be opposed to a merge to Carl Saff either, but here, the consensus leans to keep as new sources were brought to light. Geschichte (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Penguin (music)

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic music duo based in Chicago. I doubt their notability. The sourcing consists of the site of their record label and an Allmusic biography. The Allmusic biography provides notability, but the My Pal God Records site does not as it's not independent from the band. They have an article on frwiki and huwiki as well, but the sourcing relies on these two sites there as well. (And btw, I have never heard about "My Pal God Records" before, but it doesn't seem like a notable label either, despite having an article on WP - the sourcing on that article consists solely of the site of the label, and the Google search results did not return any reliable sources about that). Searching "Emperor Penguin Band" does not yielded too much stuff that are about the band so I decided to look some of their albums up. All I got were the standard unreliable sites (youtube videos, databases, retail sites, streaming links, WP mirrors). Google Books also returned "CMJ New Music Report" magazine to me, and I thought it would be about the albums, (I looked up "Mysterious Pony" and "Shatter the Illusion of Integrity, Yeah") but it was just the titles listed as part of a "new album releases" and "monthly album releases" lists. That's it. So I did not found any reliable sources other than Allmusic. They don't seem notable to me. Maybe there are print sources available but I can't track them down, as I am not keen on that. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject of the article does not seem to notable, and it doesn't seem to follow WP:V either. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Allmusic bio, there are two album reviews on that site, and there are also reviews from Washington City Paper and NME. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fincham

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

I am nominating the article Paul Fincham for deletion. This individual is not a no more a noteworthy composer than many others of the same ilk and if we allowed them each to have their own page, we would be cluttered very quickly. To me this seems like little more than a vanity project by an individual who seems to feel entitled to a page because of their more famous brother. I cannot see this article being of use to anybody who uses this website, and therefore this is the definition of a vanity project. Unless Paul Fincham does anything of note in the future, there is certainly no reason for him to have an article at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.78.36 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete- the sources contain one interview, which is a good start, but the rest of the sources are all namedrops, self-published, or dead links- which is not so good. I haven't been able to find anything better: most hits I get are for different people named Paul Fincham, including a soldier who I think may have a better claim to notability than the composer. I don't think this is a "vanity" project, or that it's trying to mooch notability off his brother, and I think the subject is not far off meeting what I consider a good standard for notability (certainly verifiability is not an issue) so I would be open to reconsidering if other sources turn up. Reyk _YO! 06:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person gets non-trivial coverage 1, and has won an award (Film Fest International) for Best Original Score "A Reason to Leave" 2. Composers are known for their work and this one passes WP:COMPOSER. Person passes WP:N with coverage in RSs. The nomination rationale sstaes that if we allow this article: we would be cluttered very quickly....but we are WP:NOTPAPER. The rest of the nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - the sources are weak and there is little additional that can be found to corroborate it. We do not accept minor films, and this should apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.78.36 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC) </> The nomination statement counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: the above vote is by the SPA nominator. Crusading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC) (edited 02:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:COMPOSER as he wrote a piece for the London Philharmonic Choir, a notable performance group, so should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Buesst

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

I see a couple of passing mentions (not in-depth) in a few books and that's about it. Someone probably needs to go through the blue links in the filmography, too but that's another matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some extra information and links. He has made features seems to be a key figure. Dutchy85 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFI winner, 1970, Best short Fiction Film. Coverage can be found in trove such as this mainstream national coverage of his work. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 15 October 2020 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it All

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

non notable band Heiko Gerber (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Ensemble has 3 notable band members, and can be redirected to Christian Olde Wolbers or another band member if the article can not be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the band has produced nothing. I can't find any release whatsoever on Metal-Archives or Discogs. No redirect target stands out among the three band members. Geschichte (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2020 (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 17:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mitchell (actress)

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

Mitchell had one semi-significant role. This was the one of 1 of Jethro's 7 daughters in the film The Ten Commandments. I am not even sure if her role there makes it to the level of significant. That alone is not enough to make her a notable actress, and the role itself did not develop the type of cult following that would make her notable, so I really see no notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on a look at her other roles such as a single episode appearance on Gidget as a hatcheck girl shows that her roles are minor, nor does the sourcing shows that any of WP:NACTOR is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2020 (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 snow keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Iowa Hawkeyes football team

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

This article is one example among many (which I've randomly chosen as a test case) which are formulaic and which seem to be overly detailed. There are articles for every year of every college team in every sport going back to the 1800s. They contain details down to the names and numbers of all the players, and for specific games even the weather and the times and details of specific plays. The outcomes of these games are inconsequential for the rest of humanity, and the fact that in one game out of millions a particular person did one of the five things one can do in that sport at a particular time, can only be interesting to the most rabid fan of that sport and college team. This level of detail seems appropriate for a sports almanac, but not a general-interest encyclopedia. I think it would make sense to delete or merge these types of articles, and only keep the most important details, if any, in team articles and biographical articles on the players and coaches that are notable enough to have them. -- Beland (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The season easily passes WP:GNG and our notability guidelines as secondary sources took note of it. There's no exclusionary principle saying a topic isn't notable because the articles are too detailed. This is a straight-up "I don't like it" nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The season for a major college program is easily notable as one can find plenty of significant coverage on them. "Overly detailed" is not a rationale for deletion, nor should it be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom does not suggest a valid rationale for deletion and the article (as well as others like it) pass our notability standards. I suspect the answer to nom's test will become apparent rather quickly. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy basis given for deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant policy principle is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, though I'm surprised commentators didn't find that obvious. -- Beland (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, this article is the antithesis of indiscriminate information. See WP:DISCRIMINATE. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cbl--this article is very discriminate--it focuses exclusively on one year of one team of college football. What's "obvious" is the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definiteness of scope is perhaps necessary but not sufficient to keep material from being "indiscriminate" in the sense of this policy. For example, an article that covers the daily temperature readings of the main weather station in Cincinnati, Ohio for a given year also has a clear, crisp, scope. But it's beyond the level of detail appropriate to a general-interest encyclopedia, even though those values were reported on local TV and in national media like the Weather Channel. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but "too much detail" is not the same as "indiscriminate collection of information" -- it's quite the opposite. So please understand our confusion when an argument is brought forth that doesn't apply at all. If the argument is "level of interest" I would respond with that's not a measure of notability because different people find different things to be interesting or uninteresting. Our standard of notability is largely accepted to be covered in the general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - and that has been met. In addition to statistics, there is a commentary of preseason outlook and some other detail on games played. If you want to look at WP:IMPACT, note that Bill Snyder was an assistant coach that season and we can find sources pointing to that season's success being involved in his hiring at Kansas State. Many would argue that Bill Snyder as a head coach changed the college football landscape for many years to come.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that policy were applicable, you are still expected to actually mention it in the nom. As it stands, your nom rationale is based purely on your personal opinion. Besides, as others have already said, that policy is not applicable in this instance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikilawyer and this isn't a courtroom. Part of the reason for nominating one test article is to get input from editors familiar with notability in sports, since I don't participate in many deletion discussions and there might be precedents I'm not aware of. There's simply no way I could cite every relevant policy, and editors shouldn't have to know everything about every corner of the world and Wikipedia to start a discussion to find consensus. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, I think that much of the pushback here comes from your idea of what AfD is for. If you had checked the talk page of this article, it would have led you to an active wikiproject with notability guidelines and even a page answering many of the points you laid out in your nom. That project or some similar talk page is the appropriate place to discuss notability in sports and, as you say below, get a sense of what the standards for this type of article are. The wrong place is a single AfD that will have very little precedential value, and so to some this nom may come across as you unilaterally deciding that the notability of this type of article is in question. Again, I understand what you were thinking, I just think that the commenters here have a very different idea of what AfD noms should be used for--and that's why there's a strong reaction. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually quite helpful, even though that's categorized as an essay and not a guideline. As it turns out, there's also WP:NSEASON. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you are expected to cite every relevant policy. The problem is that your nomination statement cited zero policies. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope in the future, if someone nominates an article on a topic which is, say, obviously not notable, that the outcome will not depend on whether or not the nominator linked to the notability policy or said some magic words. These decisions really should depend on the merits and not the ability of the nominator to articulate a case. Otherwise, the results won't be consistent, and the project will waste the effort put into identifying inappropriate articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, I see no resaon given by the nominator to delete the article that would apply to a policy, guideline, or anything else. Having details about the season actually points toward notability, not taking away from it. It looks more like the nominator is taking a position that is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. No policy-based reason given for deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and snowy keep per all of the above. This is an article about a top level Power Five team that won the Big Ten championship and was ranked in the top 10 in both polls. Easily passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep No reason given for deletion outside of 'this is what came up on 'I wanna delete' roulette'. Stop doing this as the basis for testing AfD on a article type you personally hate! Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: If you don't agree the article should be deleted, that's fine, but there's no reason to adopt a mocking tone. I certainly wasn't roaming Wikipedia looking for things to delete. I was actually cleaning up a large number of these articles when I started to notice the highly repetitive format and started to wonder if I should keep cleaning or if this material would all just be deleted some day anyway. Let's keep an atmosphere of respect for each other. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep / waste of time nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator admits that this is a test case, so this is borderline WP:POINT. "The outcomes of these games are inconsequential for the rest of humanity, and the fact that in one game out of millions a particular person did one of the five things one can do in that sport at a particular time, can only be interesting to the most rabid fan of that sport and college team" is nothing more than a long-winded way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No policy-based rationale to consider deletion has been provided, aside from a vague claim that this is indiscriminate information, which has been reasonably countered above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, please assume good faith. It would have been far more disruptive to mass-nominate all such articles for deletion all at once, and I was trying to get a sense whether or not I was completely off-base before doing that. That's exactly what we did recently with future-fiction articles, except in that case people agreed the material should be deleted. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: I don't question your good faith in nominating this. However, given the strong consensus so far, you may want to consider withdrawing the nom so that all parties can move on to more productive endeavors. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a bad faith nomination either. We can handle a little discussion like this from time to time, but I also think it's past time to close it. I shudder to think of some of the foolish decisions I've made in my history on Wikipedia (makes this look like really nothing... which it really is nothing...), I can extend some grace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Global Management

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

Another run of the mill equity management firm. No obvious sources beyond simply confirming that it exists, as far as I can tell. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ritchie333, no evidence of notability. I'm the one who CSDd it first. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 00:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Directory nor a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 19 October 2020 (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 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Kim (politician)

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

Non-notable unelected politician candidate. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (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/2020 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won — the primary notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates are accepted as notable only if (a) they have a credible claim to preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can credibly claim that their candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those things are demonstrated here, and the article depends very heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published campaign website about himself and YouTube videos and routine candidate directories that have profiles on every candidate in every district — and even the few genuinely "strong" sources, such as The New York Times and Asian American Policy Review, still just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which is not the kind of "coverage" we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I substantially contributed to this article, but unfortunately agree with Bearcat. When I came across it it had essentially zero non-primary sources. I fixed that, but yes, the sources I found are insufficient. I was going to do another run through today to see if I missed anything, but if Bearcat didn't see anything else I'm confident I did not. I live in Kim's district currently and will be voting for him; if he wins (he's a longshot, but it's not impossible) we can reassess. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing does not show the GNG being passed. It's just WP:TOOSOON for him. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's essentially a campaign ad, considering he won't be notable if he loses the election. If he wins we can restore it immediately. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidate for congress. If he wins in November he will merit an article, not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 34. As mentioned by others, candidates largely do not meet WP:NPOL. If Kim wins in November, we can re-create the article. Bkissin (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be consistent with other positions I have taken, this should be redirected to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 34 as a usual and appropriate outcome under WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. My position is not bolded because with now 14 days until the election, and notwithstanding concerns about Wikipedia being a repository of campaign brochures, I think we should refrain from deleting subjects within the last few days before an election when they might become elected to a position that confers the presumption of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a rule that we couldn't delete articles about unelected candidates X days before the election, then every candidate in the United States could just suddenly bumrush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X for that last minute push of extra publicity — and, in fact, they'd actually be free to do that another seven days before Day X, since such an article still wouldn't be deletable if the closure date of an AFD discussion would land inside the moratorium period. So regardless of how close the election is or isn't, we still have to treat articles like this exactly the same way as we would at any other time, and can't impose a temporary moratorium on discussing candidate articles just because the election is within a matter of weeks. We do have a little bit of wiggle room at the back end about leaving an AFD discussion open for an extra day or two if its eligibility for closure falls within one or two days of election day (and even then only because a discussion might naturally take that long to actually get closed anyway), but there isn't and rightly shouldn't be a moratorium on initiating the discussion at any time. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this back and forth a couple years ago. I did not offer a "procedural keep" bolded comment, as I do not disagree with opening the discussion, but I do believe that anyone who considers closing a deletion discussion within a few weeks of election day should take the date of the election into account, whether that is a relist or not closing until after the election. --Enos733 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits / Migrate to Draft At the moment, there is no debate over the fact that the article is guilty of bias. I tried to go through last night in order to start making edits to remove bias, and will continue to. I believe that there is precedent to keeping a House candidate article if it is believed they have a shot at winning, exhibited by Kim's major endorsements. Alternately, the article should be migrated into a Draft on the chance that Kim wins; if he does, then it can be brought back. I understand why having this up now could be disputed, but making it a Draft article for after the election is also valid. Deletion seems harsh and overly broad; migration seems useless. If the page does not have validity staying up, make it a draft for later -- there is little relevance in a merger, I think. I will continue to remove bias no matter what happens, as I have done on the pages of a number of candidates and elected officials. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are generally not eligible for pages, so I'm not sure where you came up with the precedent that we keep those articles given the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 21 October 2020 (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 Stripe (company). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paystack

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

Promotional UPE article for a G11 borderline eligible page about a non-notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Asides hits in Tech Crunch which are all mere announcement I am unable to find anything concrete following a WP:BEFORE search asides mention of a recent $200m dollar company sale which are all like said earlier mere mentions & nothing in-depth. I believe toosoon applies here as well. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - largest startup acquisition in Nigerian history (the largest economy in Africa), with multiple, significant secondary coverage in Nigerian RS from 2018, e.g. [4], [5], along with current coverage on the Stripe acquisition in the FT [6], TechCrunch, Irish Times, etc. Stripe appears to be retaining the Paystack branding, and independent operation (per Reuters [7]), so the article's got potential for future expansion. Captain Calm (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve This article is not promotional, I dont see the use of any promotional text or tone in its content, does it need to be Improved, Yes? This is Nigeria's Largest startup acquistion for Gods sake.Haylad (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Haylad (and Captain Calm) - if it is notable, someone will have written about the company. Are there are references which say that they were Nigeria's largest startup acquisition (that meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND)? I can't locate any so far, most are based on announcements and/or interviews. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The TechCrunch ref, cited in the article. See also [8]. But its notability isn't contingent merely on it being the largest startup acquisition. There is easily sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORP. Captain Calm (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stripe (company). None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are based on announcements or leaks from "related sources" and do not contain any Independent Content. For example, it is notable that the articles announcing the Stripe acquisition all use the same phrases and descriptions and occurred as this announcement appears on the Paystack website along with similar announcements on the Stripe website. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. A redirect to the acquirer makes the most sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stripe (company). Not separately notable. 1292simon (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2020 (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 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clips Mill, West Virginia

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

This looks to fall below the threshold of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. A USGS listing calls it a locale (geography), which by definition fails WP:GEOLAND. Topographic maps either don't show it or show it in an italic font that is used to mark bridges and a race track on the same maps. County history doesn't mention it, and newspapers.com results are for mentions of "clip" or "mill", but nothing together. Not seeing notability here, it appears to be a generic old mill site. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourced by the USGS, a highly-reliable source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:26 on October 16, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
delete It may be sourced from the not-that-super-reliable GNIS, but they messed this one up a lot, starting with not reading their own maps very well. It is actually Clipp's Mill, and it actually was a mill, called Beeler's Mill in its first incarnation. It doesn't start showing up on topos after it had been been dismantled in 1947, and those early references use the correct spelling; then about a decade later, for whatever reason, the second P was dropped from the map label. Using the correct spelling, I was able to find this Jefferson County Landmark Nomination Report for the mill's waterwheel, which survives and has been restored. The report contains a history of the mill in some detail. That all said, there is no evidence for this as anything beyond a mill, and notability of the surviving traces is strictly local. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the USGS gazetteer is reliable, where did you get the idea that any context-free listing in its tens of thousands of entries is automatically notable? Locales are especially not notable, short of significant coverage. Good analysis by Mangoe. Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 21 October 2020 (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 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Aryee

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

Résumé-like BLP of a television presenter, not properly sourced as having a substantive notability claim under our inclusion standards for television presenters. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion here, he has to either (a) earn an important distinction, such as a major national science or television award, or (b) show enough third-party coverage about him in real media to clear WP:GNG. But this doesn't make any claim about him that would pass the first test, and the footnotes are two primary sources and a single article in a "social video" webzine which briefly namechecks Patrick Aryee in the process of not being about Patrick Aryee, which means there isn't enough substantive coverage to claim that he passes the latter. Also this has been directly edited by the subject himself, so there are conflict of interest issues here. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching for sources, I didn't find any substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Coverage has to do with things he's been in, not the subject himself. --Kbabej (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TV and film presenters are not automatically notable, and this person appears to be ordinary and not passing notability. Please ping me if you have additional evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2020 (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. To the extent that the WP:GEOLAND criterion is met, which it does not appear to be, even this only makes something "typically presumed to be notable" and the consensus at this discussion is that it is not. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aldridge, West Virginia

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

Not a populated place, it's a locale (geography). 1981 USGS report calls it a locale, which falls below the treshhold of WP:GEOLAND. Topographic maps suggest a minor point on the railroad. County history suggests its a depot. Station mentioned. Most newspapers.com and Google books hits are for last names. As a locale, it fails WP:GEOLAND, and there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's clearly a point on the railroad, and one which, it appears, disappeared relatively early as such things go, and the name on the map migrates around conspicuously, so that the oldest topos showing a building by the tracks place it (and the name) a bit to the east of the spot indicated by GNIS. I see no evidence of a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced by the USGS, a highly-reliable source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:27 on October 16, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- @Neutralhomer: - The USGS document listed calls it a locale, which by definition fails WP:GEOLAND, as locales are defined as places without permanent human population. The GNIS source linked in the article is a low-quality database and does not reach the normal reliability of USGS publications, see WP:GNIS for more information. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hog Farm: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. "Locale" is not listed in GEOLAND, I did a word search on the page. An unincorporated community is not, in fact, a locale. It is just what is says, a community that has not be incorporated by charter. West Virginia is known (same with Virginia) for having MANY unincorporated communities. Some unincorporated communities, do in fact, have their own services. Two examples: Arthurdale, West Virginia and Independence, West Virginia are both unincorporated communities located in Preston County, West Virginia, both have post offices. Some unincorporated communities don't, most do. Because while they are unincorporated, they do need mail. So, I stand by my !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:03 on October 16, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
    - @Neutralhomer: - The point I was making is that since a locale is defined as As defined by the United States Geological Survey, a locale is a geographic place at which there is or was human activity. It does not include populated places (such as cities, settlements, towns, or villages), mines, and dams., by definition it cannot be a populated, legally recognized place. Not all unincorporated communities are locales. Neither of the two examples you gave are locales. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Hog Farm: If you want to get into semantics, you could say New York City is a locale. But you listed GEOLAND and the word "locale" is not listed. Furthermore, in the USGS filing, it says this Populated (Community) Place (except those associated with facilities). A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. So, they consider it a populated place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:47 on October 16, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- @Neutralhomer: GNIS is not terribly reliable when it comes to identifying the nature of a place; see WP:GNIS for further explanation of this. Even for its intended purpose (establishing the name of a place) it occasionally slips, but "populated place" as a classification has been found to include everything from ranches to windmills to a literal box in the middle of a lake. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mangoe: Sorry for the slow reply, it's been an eventful day (I'm a custodian for a public school system, which just closed one of our schools due to a COVID outbreak). Anyway, using the Google Maps link, you can see that they show the communities exist. Now, am I saying that one reference is enough? Clearly not. There should be waaay more references. I just think that having the USGS, however clinky their identification process is (it is used across the entire project), that alone shouldn't be enough to delete these two pages. I don't feel there is enough. If there was, I would change my !vote, but I still see more than enough to keep these pages around. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28 on October 17, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
    - Google Maps is getting its names from us and similar sources. It's not an independent source. And whatever one may think of the USGS as a whole, this particular project had a lot of issues, one of which was taking isolated railroad locations (most often passing sidings) and misidentifying them as "populated places", when the reality was that there had to be a station with a name for operational reasons, regardless of whether anyone lived nearby. I don't see evidence of a siding in this case (they usually show up on the topos) but I also don't have better evidence to suggest anything else than a named point on the railroad. Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Mangoe: You didn't ping, so I didn't notice this was updated. West Virginia has a LOT of coal towns, so do a tad more research before writing anything off as just "a named point on the railroad." As for Google getting it's names from Wikipedia and similar sources, I don't think so. Look at any form of Google Maps or Google Earth and you will see OpenStreetMap and USGS copyrights at the bottom, along with Google's own copyright. Nowhere is Wikipedia or Wikimedia listed unless you are using the Wikipedia addon on Google Earth. I'm not changing my !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22 on October 20, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
Delete The WP:GNIS is not a reliable source, with many discrepancies with the USGS gazetteers, and even if it is/was in fact a "populated place", that is not the automatically same as a notable community. Locale (geographic) has a specific definition as used, and no, New York City is not a locale. Place names on Google Maps are imported in bulk from GNIS, and if you click the name and there is a Wikipedia article on it, that is imported into the sidebar. I see no evidence this is a coal town or anything else establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: GNIS is an essay, come on! Policies! Locale, itself, is sourced by ONE! USGS source. So, either the USGS is a crappy source or it's a reliable source. It can't be both. As for Aldridge not being a coal town, what "no evidence" did you see? Cause I saw evidence. Not great, but there was. What we have here is WP:Cherrypicking (yes, another essay), but in this case this one counts. You are picking the negative and excluding the positive, hoping no one will look and notice. I looked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:18 on October 21, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
  - The USGS place names gazetteer lists Aldridge as a "locale", defined this way on page 3, so I have no idea what you're getting on about: our locale (geographic) article is referring specifically to this definition. The USGS as an entity is generally a reliable source for contextual content, but the online GNIS as a database is not a reliable source with respect to its classifications. We have literally hundreds of examples, just a few of which are provided in this essay (if you have a specific line to challenge, say so rather than complaining about it being an essay), showing widespread inaccuaracies in the GNIS, falsely listing railroad junctions, ranches, crossings, and other sites in the "populated place" classification. Even for those correctly classified, this includes neighborhoods, subdivisions, mobile home parks, and other places which are not automatically notable. We require further sources beyond a context-free database to establish notability. You have provided none. Are you asking me to prove a negative or something? No, I have not seen any evidence this is a coal town. Reywas92^Talk 05:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Reywas92: The GNIS is part of the USGS. So, my point is, you can't have a unreliable source within a reliable source. It's either reliable or unreliable. Not both. Also, first line of "locale": "place at which there is or was human activity". Which means, New York City can be considered a locale. There is human activity in NYC, at least the last time I checked. The WP:GNIS page is an essay, not a policy. We don't delete pages according to essays. The Locale (geographic) page itself uses the USGS as a source, which may or may not be reliable from WP:GNIS and your present arguement. Still not changing my !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20 on October 21, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
      - "locale" and "populated place" are exclusive terms. If it qualifies as a populated place, it can't be a locale. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Reywas92: So, what is it populated with? Cows? Last I checked, NYC was not populated with cows. Though there was that one goat in Brooklyn, freakin' hipsters. You are having a semantic arguement. Locale says "place at which there is or was human activity". Well, human activity can happen and it be a populated place too. So, isn't a locale a populated place and a populated place a locale? Yeah, sorry. Your semantic arguement isn't working, it's just annoying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on October 22, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
        Please don't be rude, this isn't about semantics, it's merely following what the book source says. Aldridge is on page 8 of West Virginia Geographic Names, and it says "locale" under "Feature Class". On page 3, it defines this feature class as "place at which there is or was human activity: it does not include populated places (ppl)" because ppl is a different feature class for "populated place: place or area with scattered buildings and a permanent human population". The USGS defines these terms to be exclusive. This hardly matters because whether this is a place where people live or a locale by whatever definition, this is not automatic notability. Our guidelines indicate we need coverage about the place, and one line or entry showing the coordinates of a place name does not meet our notability requirements. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Reywas92: Where was I rude? By calling people in Brooklyn hipsters? Have you been to Brooklyn? It's full of annoying hipsters. That's not rude to you, that's rude to people in Brooklyn, specifically the hipsters...and if you are a hipster and live in or are from Brooklyn, I stand by my statement. Now, where does it say "[t]he USGS defines these terms to be exclusive"? You haven't shown me anything regarding that. You also keep telling me that the USGS is a reliable source, but GNIS is a bad source (which is within the USGS). So, notability would be found from the USGS source itself. Plus, the links you just added above, would do for secondary sources. So, technically, you have met GNG for us with a still very semantic arguement. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25 on October 22, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
        Oh my god, GNG requires "significant coverage" which this is not! Yes, it's right there on page 3 in the West Virginia Geographic Names definitions of feature classes: they define "locale" to exclude populated places because that's a different classification! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
        I find it ironic to get called a hipster, as I was raised on a farm, and meet several of the You Might Be a Redneck If… criteria. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Hog Farm: I said "is full of annoying hipsters" and "if you are a hipster and live in or are from Brooklyn". Just don't be a hipster and we are good. I live 70 miles from DC (ironically, about 20 miles south of Aldridge), and we have hipsters here....and cows (if you go five miles in any direction)! Gotta go about 3 miles down a road from my house to find the pig farm. :) Hipsters are pretentious and annoying. Off topic, yes. Worth the diversion, absolutely! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:37 on October 22, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

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 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonso Okpala

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

Covert UPE article of a “Businessman” that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows hits in sources without editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking hence all unreliable sources. Subject also fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really support the protection of Wikipedia standard, thank you very much. Abubakar Balarabe

(talk) 5:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Okpala seems like an impressive young businessman and may be a career to watch. If there was an article on VFD the newly public company he's CEO of, I would !vote to redirect to there, but there's no such article at this time. So it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (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 17:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kocher, California

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

No GNIS entry for Kocher. Can't find it on topographic maps, and all of the newspapers.com and Google Books hits I can find are for people's last names, even when searching in county histories. Sourced only to Durham, who calls it a place north of Bagby along the railroad. It's unclear what this was, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notabillity for this entity. Don't even know what it is / was as of posting this comment. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it's hard to call something notable if it can't even be identified. Glendoremus (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No post office, not in GNIS. I had no success with Newspapers.com or GBooks searching for "Kocher Yosemite Valley Railroad," other than finding mention of a Mr. C. E Kocher. The 1915-16 Yosemite Valley Railroad schedule does not show Kocher. Cxbrx (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2020 (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 Procedural close. This AfD was started by a now-blocked sockpuppet account of serial sockpuppeteer Daaask. Since no one else has commented on it yet, I am closing this procedurally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadaikutty Singam (TV series)

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

references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject Kannalane (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kannalane (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (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/2020 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: Nominator appears to be a Daaask sockpuppet and the comment left above was stolen from another AfD, as we can see in this hasty correction. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (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. This AfD seems to have descended more into a discussion of NSEASONS and claims of Bias and the like, neither of which are suitable for this discussion. Whilst there is little discussion here to support GNG, I'm not seeing a strong concensus to delete. Given the other discussions here, I think a no consensus close is the best option with the potential for this to be revisited again at a later date for a more focussed discussion. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, which are the agreed guidelines for this type of article. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in the article doesn't demonstrate GNG, but a cursory before search shows the club and league is receiving ongoing coverage this year. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is significant coverage surrounding the top two flights of women's football in England at the very least to the point where these fully professional teams meet GNG. Propose WP:COMMONSENSE is applied to the fact that while the second-tier is not fully professional, those teams that are professional in that division meet GNG and at worst the article simply needs expanding and improving, just like the vast majority of EFL League Two team's season articles which have the same issues but are left published. To have 92 men's team season articles and actively go out of the way to limit women's team season articles to 12 seems incredibly problematic. The current notability criteria was created with the men's league's in mind and needs to be adapted to fit GNG teams in women's football. Hjk1106 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Dougal18 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - maybe we should move this to the draft space until GNG is demonstrated? Spiderone 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially although per my earlier concerns regarding NSEASONS criteria created without taking the structure of women's football into account, may I suggest a simple solution would be to mirror the fact that all men's season articles that fit GNG do so by virtue they are also eligible for the nation's premier league cup (e.g. EFL Cup). Applying the same logic to the women's equivalent (e.g. FA Women's League Cup) would enable professional teams who would otherwise meet GNG but get relegated to the second tier and still compete in the professional league's cup competition, do not lose notability on a broadstrokes technicality. Per this example, semi-pro teams like Blackburn Rovers and Charlton Athletic would still not meet GNG but professional second tier teams such as Liverpool and London City Lionesses would. Appreciate the feedback. Hjk1106 21:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious when the WP:Footy lads came for the Doncaster Belles season articles that the "end game" would be a purge of all women's season articles. That's why I was surprised and disappointed that yourselves who spend hours doing such great work on them never bothered your arses to !vote in the recent AfDs. Don't worry, there is the opportunity for you to remedy this oversight at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#9 October 2020. You're welcome :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even leaving aside that this is part of quite a sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles, this particular one clearly meets GNG. As others have noted, there is currently elevated "Sigcov" around English women's football. That might not be to everybodies' tastes but please remember Wikipedia is not the place to try and "right great wrongs". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routine match reports, transfer news and squad lists are hardly WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you vehemently hate women's football - as is your right - I don't know why and I don't much care. But I do think others should take that into account when looking through your unending daily deletion requests. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person has actually brought forward any evidence that this passes GNG Spiderone 19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? You will only pretend it is "routine" or "refbombing". Editors can check for themselves. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per AfD guidance If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL Spiderone 20:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - has anyone who has so far objected put any further thought into my earlier suggestions regarding better adapting the current auto NSEASONS criteria for Championship teams? Surely fully-professional teams (with full senior internationals no less) that continue to contest the premier League Cup competition meet GNG and if we are to AGF then this simple adaption would relieve you of any objections based purely on the current technicality that some Championship teams remain semi-pro that you all seem to be hiding behind. Hjk1106 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid suggestion. It might be worth starting a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football unless there's a better forum for it somewhere else Spiderone 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. My only hesitation with that is it raises the exact same concern it seeks to address - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football doesn't seem the appropriate place considering it is as much about women's football as the NSEASONS it created. Hjk1106 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't hiding behind it, it's trying to figure out what is a reasonable cutoff for notability. Individual team seasons that meet WP:GNG will be kept whether or not they play in a fully-professional league. Honestly I think bringing it up at WT:FPL for the Championship specifically would be worthwhile. I'm not sure why it gets ignored so much; even though it is just an essay, it's an excellent starting point for establishing a base notability for teams and players. Jay eyem (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:NSEASONS for not playing in a fully professional league. Ongoing coverage is not sufficient justification for an article when that coverage is routine coverage. Honestly not as sure about the COMMONSENSE proposal; I don't see a real compelling reason to keep or delete, but I'm not sure where the assumption of notability for team seasons for the second tier of women's football in England comes from. The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage, so I'm inclined towards deletion. It is also completely inexcusable for user Bring back Daz Sampson to be making such inflammatory remarks of Spiderone and I hope that they will assume good faith in the future and that they will strike their remarks. Jay eyem (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely baffled here - which "inflammatory remarks" do you think I should strike? Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lines I think you should strike include, but are not limited to:

"It was obvious when the WP:Footy lads came for the Doncaster Belles season articles that the "end game" would be a purge of all women's season articles."

"Don't worry, there is the opportunity for you to remedy this oversight at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#9 October 2020." (this constitutes canvassing)

"Even leaving aside that this is part of quite a sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles"

"Clearly you vehemently hate women's football"

"But I do think others should take that into account when looking through your unending daily deletion requests"

"Why bother? You will only pretend it is "routine" or "refbombing""

"Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS"

These are all arguments made in incredibly bad faith and have no place in a deletion argument. And FPL is linked both to NSEASONS and NFOOTY which address that leagues met are "top professional leagues", which WP:FOOTY maintains at WP:FPL. There is no clear statement of what makes a league "fully-professional", which is an issue, but if a competition is missing, it can always be brought up at the talk page. Plus individual seasons still need to meet GNG, which has not yet been demonstrated. We are not here to right great wrongs, only to argue about notability of the subject. Jay eyem (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deliberately haven't speculated on anyone's motives or made any aspersions of bad faith (unlike you!) But Spiderone's hyperactivity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts is a matter of fact. And - as others have noted - it is striking how many of the discussions have been closed in questionable circumstances, by an openly partisan Admin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need to be brought up at WP:ANI? This pattern of uncivil editing and bad faith has continued across multiple discussion pages and has no place on Wikipedia. Argue for the notability, and keep your aspersions out of this. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Jay. You've had your !vote now I suggest you cease repeating yourself and allow others the same courtesy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. For this article, there are some sources which clearly show coverage: [9] [10] even though the ins and outs of the season contain more local coverage: [11] [12]. My educated guess based on the level of coverage the league receives is that this will be a notable season. Clear keep (already voted above). SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what is meant by this? You can't just get rid of a Wikipedia guideline. They may not be strict policies but guidelines exist to guide policy decisions. NSEASONS is really just a starting criteria for presumed notability; an article still needs to pass GNG. Ultimately that is what an AfD should be closed on. Where there is a significant gap is between the guideline NSEASONS, which states "top professional leagues", and the WP:FOOTY essay FPL, which uses the more stringent criteria of "fully-professional leagues"; THAT seems to be causing concern. For football/soccer, GNG for team sports seasons are guided by NSEASONS which is in turn usually guided by FPL, but if a season still meets GNG otherwise then it should be kept. I'm confused on where the issue lies here.

As an aside, I'm not sure here is the best place to discuss that in-depth. Maybe it should be brought up at WT:NSPORT or WT:FOOTY? I have tried multiple times to get clarification for FPL before but there's been little effort to write out a definition. Jay eyem (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where User:Jay eyem does NSEASONS say fully-professional? It only says professional. This is a national league, with signficicant media coverage - more than enough to source a decent article. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive consensus at AfD that FPL is used as the cutoff for team season articles. Even arguing in the alternative, NSEASONS specifies "top professional leagues", which a second tier clearly is not. And if there is significant coverage, it has not yet been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sporting Flyer has indicated sources recently that may help satisfy GNG. Seems a bit routine in terms of being mainly match reporting, a manager leaving and a very brief mention about the continental league cup. Clearly some coverage out there. It would be useful if editors involved in this discussion could drop the ad hominem comments and questioning of other editors motives and concentrating on locating and discussing further sources. At the moment, with the sources actually presented in the article and here, this is looking a bit too soon at best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Comment Disagree with using NSEASONS for any women's football teams, leagues or seasons for the stated reasons that it wholly and historically biased against women's sports as editors here have applied it. I would also be interested in how many women were involved in the writing of the WP:FTL essay but that's another topic for some other time. Interjecting some much needed civility into the conversation now, as that seems to be severely lacking, so please don't attack me and try to understand where I am coming from. As Spiderone has stated, WP:GNG is a the best solution we have at the moment, barring further clarity on other guidelines and essays. Does this particular season, as it stands now, hold any significance whatsoever per the letter of the law that is GNG? Fenix down is correct. If you believe so then make sure the article is sourced. This isn't the 1940s or even the 1990s. Find sources to prove it or this particular season doesn't belong. That is not to say the club doesn't pass GNG. We are talking about one season. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NSEASONS as the team plays in a top professional league (NSEASONS, unlike NFOOTBALL, doesn't require full-professionalism). There's more than enough media coverage and sources to write a decent article. And easily meets GNG with recent coverage like this and this. Removing articles like this is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"TOP" has a very clear and specific meaning, and a second tier absolutely does not meet that definition. How is that not clear? The two sources you provided are clear examples of routine coverage and do not cover the season in depth. Jay eyem (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top seems to mean fourth tier for male football leagues in the same country, with many examples of seasons articles fifth tier teams surviving AFD. We should be fighting WP:BIAS not perpetuating it. If a league is getting frequent, detailed coverage, for other than just matches, then it is notable ... this is not an example of ROUTINE coverage. Top doesn't mean first. England, Spain, and Italy are all top European teams - but there's more than one. Nfitz (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That literally makes no sense, those other leagues easily pass GNG as do their various team seasons. The same cannot be said here. And no, getting regular routine coverage is NOT sufficient to pass GNG. There should be sources that cover the entire season in depth. That should not be hard to find. Plus that definition of "top" you are using is even more restrictive than I would use, so I don't see a compelling argument there. Jay eyem (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: If "TOP" has a very clear meaning then does that mean you are changing your vote on the 2013 Belle's season as they played in the TOP women's league in England that year and in years before that? Or is this a case of selective use? It applies here but not there. That's the problem with giving an essay precedence over policy and even guideline whether there is consensus or not. The rule is WP:GNG and nothing else. When you start adding mud into the water it gets less clear, not more. WP:GNG works for modern subjects, say post 1970's. The issue that remains is in historical context which would be pre-1980's when subjects about and on women and aboriginal topics were not discussed in the mainstream because they were still considered "less than" important to the Euro-American male dominated society. That is an issue that needs to be addressed but one that requires a delicate balance and the use of WP:COMMONSENSE. WP:NSEASONS is a guideline, I will give you that. WP:FPL is an essay, and one that states it is not complete. Neither supersedes GNG. That is the starting point for EVERYTHING on Wikipedia, not NSEASONS, certainly not an incomplete essay in FPL. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, GNG still has not been demonstrated for that season as a whole, whereas the relegation is clearly notable. And re:common sense, the content of the article as it is now is much better suited to be merged into the main article Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. (also WP:OSE is not an argument to keep this or that article). And yes, I agree that GNG needs to be the basis for the decision to delete. That requires significant coverage of the topic in detail. Regular routine coverage does not suit that. Regular match reports do not suit that. Signings, transfers, and coach hiring do not suit that. Is there a bias problem against women sports on Wikipedia? Probably. But there is also a cultural bias against women's sports in society as a whole, and we are not here to right great wrongs. If a season meets GNG, it should be kept, regardless of whether the team is a men's team or women's team. Jay eyem (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay eyem: I hear that argument a lot. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. So its purpose is to perpetuate them? To champion them? I don't think that means what you and others thinks it means. Because for Wikipedia not to use WP:COMMONSENSE and include articles on women and women's topics (such as sports) even though they have been proven to be discriminated against and treated with bias means it has now become a proponent for such things and continues said bias. I have read WP:RGW and no where does it say anything in regards to what everyone uses it for. No one is trying to add something that isn't true or put forward an assumption or theory that is unsubstantiated. We can argue whether the facts of what is presented makes the subject notable or not. I have no issue with that. But the use of the word "probably" in your response tells me everything I need to know going forward. Respectfully, there is no "probably". That's the problem in a nutshell. There is still a denial of reality and until that denial is overcome there will always be a bias present. You argued the facts very well, and presented something we could debate upon, until you got to that point. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you do not need to @ me, I am watching the page. Second, not righting great wrongs means precisely that; we don't attempt to fix the encyclopedia for ideological reasons. It's a very nasty conclusion to think that discouraging ideological editing means that we condone the bias. And please cut the personal attacks; I am not familiar with all the systemic bias on Wikipedia, which is why I used the word "probably". If you would assume good faith here that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And assuming that my arguments are ideological and not founded in facts isn't assuming bad faith on your part? This isn't about some random ideology. And, for the record, I did not personally attack you. I made an observation and choice not to engage you further on this particular subject out of good faith because I saw it was turning into the same back and forth it always does and that's not beneficial to anyone. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've written elsewhere that the "season as a whole" rule doesn't really work, since otherwise we wouldn't be able to have season articles for current seasons at all. I've written above this passes WP:GNG, and it does, and it does in part because secondary sources take note of the games and transactions of the season on a continuing basis. A "year in review" is fine, but not sufficient, and could lead to weird (but unlikely) results where two season in reviews are published for a season that had no ongoing coverage. Furthermore, WP:NSEASON is NOT a WP:NOT exclusionary principle. Also, while there is bias between coverage of men and women, and a lot of coverage of women's sport has been non-reliable (blogs and the like), coverage of the women's second tier has gotten a lot better in the last five years or so to the point where this does pass WP:GNG. Arguing or accusing others of bias is not really helpful - better to be confident in the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally ok with current seasons having articles, but if a season is unlikely to have in-depth coverage of season as a whole at the conclusion of the season, I still lean towards deletion. For example, I did a search for this club's previous season for such a source and was not able to find one. I know it is a recently founded club, but I still didn't see such coverage. This can of course get muddled by non-English sources for non-speakers for leagues like Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Puerto Rico, which is technically a "top" league but is not considered fully professional, nor are there any sources in English. And while NSEASONS alone is not a justification for deletion, failing GNG IS a justification for deletion, and I just don't see a compelling reason to keep this article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I can agree with. I can also agree that subjects like a team's relegation and any controversy surrounding it should be merged to a main article on the club unless it receives enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. The nomination here is not a "wait and see" nomination though. It is a nomination for deletion. The other article we discussed was not a nomination for merging and, though it was discussed, the ruling was a consensus to delete. Therefore the article is deleted and that information is lost, period. There are enough endorsements for the deletion to keep it deleted at the review. So merging the information is not an option as it was argued and deemed that ALL the information contained in that article, including their relegation was not worthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. That's why I voted for a relist and why I would agree with Spiderone that this article should be moved into draft until the season receives significant coverage or until sources can be added to prove notability of the season itself. I also believe that should be the case for ALL other current seasons as it applies. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still hope that there can be some sort of compromise with the Belles article. The coverage of the relegation in that article was an informative, comprehensive and accessible summary of the events that unfolded. The problem is that there are almost too many alternatives to deletion for any of them to gain a majority. We could feasibly have moved it into a renamed article (e.g. "Relegation of ___"), merged it to the main article, created a Belles history article and redirected it there... Spiderone 19:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely still merge the bulk of that prose into the team's article. Might be worth userfying the text and sources in case the page history gets deleted again. Jay eyem (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a legit compromise if we can get a consensus to agree to it. I would happily userfy the text and sources and hold it for anyone wanting to add it to the team page. In regards to this article I'm not sure what I think. On one hand I see the need to keep current articles, even if draftifying them, and on the other I see that there aren't enough sources to keep 95-to-99% current seasons, male or female, at all. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure User:Jay eyem why you claim the league doesn't meet GNG. There's numerous sources for the league ... and that's not even the issue here. If you are willing to mislead us on that - how do we trust your claims that this invididual season doesn't meet GNG, despite national coverage? You don't get national articles everytime the coach of the Little Piddlington Sunday Oldtimers changes. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the league itself clearly meets GNG, no question about that. But this isn't an AfD about the league season, but about the team season. I haven't a clue what that last quip is meant to be, but having in-depth coverage of the season as a whole is a pretty low bar. I understand giving some leeway to current seasons, where such a thing may not yet exist, but I couldn't find anything for their prior season either, and I have doubts that this one will meet GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see several comments above suggesting that for a season article to be notable there need to be in-depth sources covering "the season as a whole". If that's the case then I suspect the majority of season articles (men's and women's alike) aren't notable. I doubt very much, for example, that there are in-depth sources covering Rochdale's unremarkable mid-table finish in the Third Division North in 1929-30...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post the current season article on Arsenal here as an example when just looking at current sources provided. I didn't want to be hated on by Arsenal fans though. Better than 90% of those were signings, transfers and releases. The rest were run-of-the-mill match descriptions. The most notable article might be on them firing their mascot. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive my ignorance on English football, I have no idea whether or not those team seasons are considered notable. I know the US has an extensive list of historical leagues that are FPL, and even a lot of those are suspect and probably wouldn't pass GNG (That being said, WP:OSE is a poor argument), but I don't see such a parallel for other countries. For the record, I think sourcing is woefully insufficient for pretty much all team season articles, but it would be preposterous to suggest you could not find in-depth articles for a season review for something like the 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season. Jay eyem (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One could surmise that would be the case but those sources aren't provided. Looking at the references I see much of the same. Signings, transfers, releases, routine match reports, the occasional promotional piece. A large portion of the sources came from the team website. If we are going to hold one to a standard then we should hold them all to the same standard. We aren't talking about leagues, league season or even individual team articles, only individual team season articles. We have established a consensus that the leagues are notable. Saying there must be sources out there does not equate to there being sources out there. It is equally as preposterous to assume there are sources out there, especially with how fervently some have fought to exclude articles like this one on that basis. The sheer number of sources doesn't carry much weight when one could argue that the bulk of "The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage." --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of in-depth coverage. Took me about a minute to find all of those. Some of the sources are better than others, but there was never going to be issues finding full season reports for Arsenal. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up at AfD. And I'll just defer to WP:OSE again when comparing articles. Jay eyem (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good reads. I question whether they pass as SIGCOV but let's say they do. Now we are going into this gray area. Sources provided vs. sources researched. I'm a proponent for doing my own search for reliable sources regardless of whether they are in an article or not. But I have specifically seen articles refused entry and deleted because they didn't cite reliable sources even if reliable sources could be found doing a search. I have also seen a reliable source in one case suddenly become unreliable in another case. That's my issue with the subjective nature of AfC's and AfD's. The process is too subjective and because we use biased guidelines and incomplete essays as a primary guidance it will remain highly subjective. Also, don't defer to WP:OSE. Even it says not to use it as an argument against or for other editors comments. We do great arguing WP:GNG. That's where I hang my hat, precariously. :) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (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 17:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esdron

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

The biography is nothing more than a one sentence stub. Web searches have revealed only enough genealogical entries to maybe prove that he existed, but nothing close to indicating notability. Tagged for the complete lack of sources since August 2016. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:Mccapra (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources but can only find mentions, usually in lists. I don't think there will ever be enough content to turn this into a proper article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to List of kings of the Cimmerian Bosporus. Mccapra (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can’t find any sources for this at all. Everything online is either unrelated to this usage or if it’s the same, looks to be a mirror of this article. The article makes no sense anyway. The Bosphoran kingdom was Greek, not Trojan, nowhere near Troy and much later than it. I think this is likely a hoax. The article creator seems to have created a number of rather quirky things.
Delete As per the nominator. Sources are just mentions.CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are inadequate, and notability has not been established through any information provided in article. Article has been substantially unchanged since it was created in 2008, so sufficient time has elapsed for its expansion/improvement. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and salt -- The whole thing has the feel of fantasy or historical invention. I cannot think what possible source there might be for anything around the Black Sea in c.1100 or 1000 BC. The only potential Greek literary source for that period is Homer (which is perhaps more legend than history and would certain not be so specific. Somewhere in this there is a HOAX: my Google search produced a genalogical website that also gave Esdron as in Michigan in 1160 (AD?), which is equally incredible, as there is not reliable written history for north America at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2020 (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 Connaught Place, New Delhi#National flag at Central Park. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of India at Central Park, Connaught Place

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

I'm sure the flag looks awesome in real life, but its claim to face was not as the world's largest flag, it was India's largest Indian flag. Already seeming trivial, matters become worse for this particular flag when the record has been surpassed not one, but ten times between 2014 and 2018. Thus, this flag has no lasting importance whatsoever, and was just an insignificant news story, which Wikipedia is not an outlet of. For the same reason, news coverage doesn't amount to notability. Geschichte (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TNT, and WP:SOAP. The great country of India has lots of which to be proud, but this ain't it. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connaught Place, New Delhi#National flag at Central Park per past consensus (the largest alleged American flag for instance has its details confined to Acuity Insurance#Flag, where it's displayed at its headquarters); these 'largest flag' claims are often mainly corporate and political 'measuring contests' of little interest to anyone outside Guinness. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 15 October 2020 (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. ST47 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Layered security

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

I would propose a merge, but I don't know what of this can be salvaged. It looks like an advertisement, and it may well be -- 23% of the article's content was written by apparent SPA User:Conesasecurity. A large bulleted list of promotional-sounding content has stood since its original version in 2007. The one non-promotional section (Philosophy) was copied from Swiss Cheese model in 2014. Only one source is cited in the entire article, which is a single quotation where it seems to be mentioned in passing. Google does not seem to bring up any sources that aren't advertisements. jp×g 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR. Since it hasn't been picked up by major media, it's really just original research. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2020 (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. Per consensus and nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Society of Super Villains

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

A fictional organization - and perhaps also the focus of a single comic issue? The article isn't very clear on this... 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. PROD removed by anon with no rationale, sigh... maybe, just maybe, this could be salvaged if rewritten into an article about the comic book that they appeared it that has the same name, but I can't find any reliable reviews. The few more reliable sources cited seem do suggest this can be salvageable more than most similar articles, probably because they had an entire issue about them? But again this is not very clear from the sources I can access. PS. This is also very related to the List of Secret Society of Super Villains members with which it should be merged, on the off chance this survives. Anyway, let's see if this can be rescued, the odds are a bit better than with most similar articles. Any takers? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 8 October 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} 05:21, 8 October 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} 05:21, 8 October 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} 05:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major element in DC comics with coverage. IQNQ (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]
Comment just to clarify, the original comic book series about the team ran for 15 issues, and various other versions of the team have formed since then. Rhino131 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as said below the article should be changed to emphasize the actual comic with the title and not the fictional elements. Rhino131 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two real-world info sections at the top of the article: "Series conception" and "Publication history". The core reference for these sections is a six-page article in Back Issue!, a professional comics history/criticism magazine. The Back Issue article dicusses the Secret Society of Super Villians, directly and in detail. I have the magazine, and I added that information with the reference (in the article's current state, it's footnote #2). It doesn't seem like the nominator has looked carefully at those sections — if they did, they would have seen that the "Publication history" section says that the comic lasted for 15 issues, with two further issues unpublished. This information is backed up with an article in Don Markstein's Toonopedia, which also offers real-world publication information, as well as The Encyclopedia of Supervillains, The DC Comics Encyclopedia and DC Comics Year By Year. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or maybe reframe into an article on the comic if there are any sources on the comic itself (Seriously, why do so many comic articles focus on the fiction element at the forefront?) - It appears a single source provides the bulk of the information, while the rest are trivial mentions. Items like "The Encyclopedia of Supervillains" and "The DC Comics Encyclopedia" do not even belong in the article unless there's trouble finding the primary source corresponding to the sentence. There's not enough to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite into the article about the comic book series this group was featured on. Comic magazine series is possible notable, much more often than the substances covered within.GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In addition to the previously-named sources, I added more material to the article based on American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s by Jason Sacks and Keith Dallas (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2014), which discusses the comic for about a page, entirely real-world information about the conception of the comic. I also rewrote the lead to focus on the comic book and not the fictional group. I believe that this demonstrates notability of the comic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. They are a major opponent to the Justice League and have been through different incarnations. Plus, @Toughpigs: and @Rhino131: are right about their information. If someone wants to make an article about the comic book like @GizzyCatBella: suggested, then the information is going to have to be sorted from the limited series and the comic book team information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good improvements so far by Toughpigs, could also look into The Supervillain Reader edited by Robert Moses Peaslee, Robert G. Weiner. Right cite (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, being covered in numerous sources including DC Comics: Super-Villains; American Comic Book Chronicles; CBR; and more. The policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. Caro7200 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - suitable coverage in sources has been shown to exist (good work Toughpigs!) and that means this could be a decent article once the fictional history cruft is cut back. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. This has been rewritten into into an article about the comic series, not ficitonal organization. As such, I think the new article is sufficiently different, and a about a topic that has at least some borderline notability, this AfD shoudl be closed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 19 October 2020 (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 12:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeDo Technologies

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

Blatantly promotional and mostly unsourced. Fails CORPDEPTH as the coverage seems to be limited to routine acquisition reporting, press releases, passing mentions, etc. M4DU7 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SPAM. What a mess of a page. This appears to me to be a run of the mill software company. Other than two pages at Oracle, there are zero reliable sources. I think it's spam because a bunch of SPAs have edited it heavily, including Francis_Sousa, Patricianetop, Sandraontheroad, and WikeyWatcher. In 2013, when this page was created, we were lax about spammers, but in 2020, everybody knows not a free web host I will change my !vote if you can convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional piece of content. WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 21 October 2020 (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. ST47 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shivang Mehta

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

A promotional piece of content. references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails GNG. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This photographer does not meet notability criteria for WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG. Highly WP:PROMO content. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is still highly promotional (contains more than one external link to subject's own business venture). Has not demonstrated notability based on content of the article itself, despite having more than 7 years to do so since the article's creation. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (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 Procedural closure. Nomination is by a blocked sock. Sandstein 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Patrika

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

Lack of independent reliable resources. fails GNG CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2020 (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 Moot. Nomination is by a blocked sock. Sandstein 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Chopra

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

references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (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 12:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bisken

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. As noted at the declined draft, charting on iTunes and Spotify doesn't meet that guideline, and I can't find significant coverage online in reliable sources. There's meatpuppetry evident between the two WP:SPAs who created this article, Draft:Bisken, and sv:Bisken. WP:TOOSOON at best. Captain Calm (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should have stayed in Draft. The most notable song from his repertoire doesn't even mention his song cover. Searches point to some activity in video games with CD-Action magazine, but not that clear if that would make him famous. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that iTunes charts are unreliable for purposes of establishing notability; see WP:BADCHARTS. Otherwise this artist is only present in the typical social media and streaming entries, and despite placing on various iTunes charts he has not been noticed by the reliable music media. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 22:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence of notability as set out at WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failure of WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. My search turned up hardly any coverage. Java Hurricane 13:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ross (publisher)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Bay Area Reporter. KidAd talk 06:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Glee^anon 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes GNG. I found:
- "Bob Ross, 69; Publisher of S.F. Newspaper Oriented Toward Gays". Los Angeles Times. 2003-12-15. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- Asimov, Nanette (2003-12-12). "Bob Ross -- pioneering gay journalist and activist". SFGate. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- Leyland, Winston (2002). Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism. Leyland Publications. ISBN 978-0-943595-87-0.
- California Magazine. New West Communications Corporation. 1982.
- May, Meredith (2011-06-12). "Bay Area Reporter: 40 years at hub of gay culture". SFGate. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "San Francisco's oldest LGBT newspaper turns 45, looks forward". SFChronicle.com. 2016-06-25. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "S.F.'s LGBT press evolves as the city changes". Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- Brownworth, Victoria A. (2019-06-06). "Telling Our Stories: Gay Newspapers and Gay Liberation". Philadelphia Gay News. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "San Francisco LGBTQ newspaper Bay Area Reporter sold to staff member". Los Angeles Blade: LGBTQ News. 2017-12-22. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "San Francisco's oldest LGBT newspaper turns 45, looks forward". SFChronicle.com. 2016-06-25. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "Honoring Bob Ross, San Francisco's First LGBT Senior Center Opens In Hayes Valley". Hoodline. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "Japanese American becomes majority owner of LGBTQ newspaper » Nichi Bei". www.nichibei.org. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- Staff, SF Weekly (1995-10-18). "Out, and Down and Out, in S.F." SF Weekly. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- "LGBTQ History Month: Tavern Guild linked SF gay bars for first time". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
- The Advocate. Liberation Publications. 2004.
- Publishing, Here (1996-11-12). The Advocate. Here Publishing.
- Shamsavari, Sina (2017-03-01). "Gay ghetto comics and the alternative gay comics of Robert Kirby". Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture. 2 (1): 95–117. doi:10.1386/qsmpc.2.1.95_1. ISSN 2055-5695.
- Brantley, Allyson P. (2020-04-03). ""Hardhats May Be Misunderstood"The Boycott of Coors Beer and the Making of Gay-Labor-Chicana/o Alliances". Pacific Historical Review. 89 (2): 264–296. doi:10.1525/phr.2020.89.2.264. ISSN 0030-8684.

With tons more available. Glee^anon 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just dump like 20 search hits and cry notable. I'm not saying "no" here yet, but the couple of these I checked at random are passing mentions or more about the publishing business than Ross. WP:THREE offers some good advice here. Show us the 3 best (and maybe even throw in a couple more for good measure if they're really worth it). But this is the AFD equivalent of WP:NOTEBOMB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article. I vetted them and despite your aspersions, I’m not just crying anything.

As for three, the two obituaries, and the history of LGBTQ activism and culture in Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism should do quite nicely. Glee^anon 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, some of these are clearly junk sources that do nothing to establish notability. Source dumps like this are more harmful than helpful. Just because someone is mentioned somewhere, it doesn't matter. You've now mentioned a few that you think are best, but which ones specifically? I'm really trying to help out here, and there are no aspersions. It's just a matter of what's useful in a discussion like this. Also, please leave the collapse in place. It's extremely disruptive to the flow of the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that source list is AWESOME. And he just gave you three sources. sheesh. -- GreenC 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if I didn't have to go hunting through to see which he's talking about, but yes, the obits at least look good. But the lumping in of bad sources among the good isn't helpful. A lot of these most definitely are passing mentions only. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article. Glee^anon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different. And the mention is of the briefest variety. This cannot be used to establish notability~~, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest~~. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob Ross Foundation, obviously named after the subject, is a subsection of this bio and part of his legacy. From that source is

Yamashita now has an 80 percent stake in the company; the Bob Ross Foundation retains its 20 percent collateral shares. The foundation, named after the paper’s founding publisher, had to divest itself of the majority of its ownership interest in the paper four years ago during the restructuring.

This is perfectly appropriate content and the source adds to his GNG notability. It is dishonest, and disruptive to claim otherwise. Glee^anon 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The non-profit is discussed in the biography, it can be used in the article ("These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article"). -- GreenC 15:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article with some of the excellent sources provided by @Gleeanon409:. Thank you, Gleeanon409, for doing that research. A lot more could still be done. -- GreenC 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glee's hard work. Caro7200 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator is not proposing deletion and their claim that the subject does not pass WP:GNG is clearly false – see LA Times, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the criteria for speedy keeping are met here (yet, unless the nom decides to withdraw). A claim that something doesn't meet GNG is perfectly normal. Even if the nom is just wrong, that's still a valid reason to nominate something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closure is always an option per WP:SNOW. It seems quite sensible in this case because no-one, not even the nominator or DV, think that the page should be deleted. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The couple detailed obits in major papers are probably enough here. It would have been helpful to simply have led with those and not send us on a wild goose chase through a bunch of bad sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of those sources is bad, despite your ABF that they are. It’s dishonest and beneath collegial editing. Glee^anon 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are not helpful for establishing notability, being merely passing mentions. There's nothing uncollegial about stressing this point. We need in-depth coverage in sources to establish notability. As I said, I think the obits push just over the line here, but the rest that I checked don't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s simply untrue. GNG is about a breadth of coverage which can be met with numerous sources. All of these fulfilled the GNG concern. Glee^anon 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also sources Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism (2002), Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy (2013), Fit to Serve (2011), and The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (2008). Right cite (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person who has been the most critical of the article is Deacon Vorbis, and they voted Weak Keep. I'm not sure why folks are still trying to argue with DV about it. :) We don't need to keep fighting; everyone who's posted so far thinks that the sources meet GNG (weakly or strongly). Love wins. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I took exception to the idea that I was doing anything but posting useful sources that would benefit the article. Glee^anon 19:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that happens all the time in AfD discussions; it's not that serious. You don't need to defend your honor. If anybody posts more than three times in an AfD discussion, it usually means they have a weak case. It's much more effective to just post your argument, and then step away, so that other people get a chance to look at the sources, and make their own decision. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the improvements during AfD by GreenC and the sources found. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this an improper AfD as the nominator suggested a redirect? – The Grid (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is deletion. What happens after is sometimes resolved during the AfD itself. Two step process. -- GreenC 23:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:40, 21 October 2020 (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 12:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Cropper

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

According to IMDb, he's an assistant director. I see one interview and nothing else. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to even remotely establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I could find were this short article and this interview. Delete per nom Spiderone 16:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Brisbane Broncos players. There are insufficient rationales here for the keeping of this article as stand-alone; however, a number of editors pointed out that a redirect would not be an issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hanrahan

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

Fails ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ actually WP:RLN, only source is a brief mention, searches turn up nothing. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NFooty is for football players, not rugby players. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Project-specific guidelines notwithstanding, regardless of sport 1 game is not enough to cut it, unless there is a lot of coverage on it. Such coverage is probably not present here. As such the page fails the rule that Wikipedia is not a collection of all conceiveable information. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or, if somehow deleted, delete without prejudice of recreation) - he played in the pre-Internet era and won the reserves premiership, Brisbane's first ever honour (albeit a minor one.) The article is brand new and he clearly passes WP:RLN, so not sure why that's in the nomination. We just need a better showing of WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the longstanding consensus that one game is enough to cut it. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually untrue, the consensus has changed. Several players with 1 game have been deleted. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one game "consensus" is absurd and should be ditched. There is no other profession where a minor performance one time creates default notability. Even one top billed role in a film is not going to make an actor or actress notable, this one game rule for sports is utterly absurd and should be scrapped. It has lead to a huge proliferation of useless stubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with JPL here. This completely fails WP:GNG and that should take precedence through scraping by on RLN Spiderone 13:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such thing as longstanding consensus that one game is enough. WP:RLN talks about presumption of notability, which is easily rebutted by searching the web for coverage on the subject. There is very little coverage, and most are WP:ROUTINE announcement of his joining the Broncos. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has meet the requirements of WP: GNG

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Has played one professional game which is more then all the keyboard warriors here so he is entitled to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:E00:2111:30AF:761B:4F3:2E2D (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — 2001:8004:E00:2111:30AF:761B:4F3:2E2D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Note that there's a contradiction between the WP:RL/N and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability. The former says one appearance confers notability but the latter says "limited" appearances are not enough. I find the latter interpretation to be more reasonable, because there generally isn't enough coverage to create adequate articles for players with single-digit appearances. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ytoyoda, WP:RL/N is policy, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability is an essay. Surely if a policy and an essay contradict each other, the policy should be followed. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a rugby league deletion topic watchlist this could be put on? I can't find it easily. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer. I did it for you, see below. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Walwal20:, I think you added this to the union-related deletions rather than league (and not sure if such a list exists)? Deus et lex (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex I found it weird myself, but it appears that Rugby Union is the name of the sport itself. I couldn't find any other list related to rugby. In case you'd like to search too, you can look either at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Compact or Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting (this latter one includes discontinued lists). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: - thanks, there doesn't seem to actually be a Rugby League list. Not sure how that can be nominated? Deus et lex (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post here but I'm not sure if there is a better place for it Spiderone 12:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:RLN Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi guys, have removed the player from the rugby union related deletion discussions as he has never played rugby union. If there is a rugby league deletion discussion page he should be added to that one instead. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:RLN, whether that guideline is too loose or not is not a matter for this discussion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those calling for the deletion of this verified content has given a good reason why it should be Deleted when alternatives exist such as redirecting to List of Brisbane Broncos players. That does not require deletion, provides a usefull redirect and preserves valid content for when someone is able to do a dead tree source and expand the content. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Excuse me for another comment, but wanted to add that Hanrahan was the winner of the BRL Rothmans Medal in 1992. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to List of Brisbane Broncos players per duffbeerforme. Users are required to consider alternatives to deletion and this is a valid redirect which is better than any deletion, even if the consensus is that a standalone page is not warranted (and preserves the content in case something changes in future). Deus et lex (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:RLN portion of WP:NSPORTS. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with the reasoning put by duffbeerforme and Deus et lex. Cabrils (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin, Missouri

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

Another old post office site that's since been flooded by an artificial resorvoir. State Historical Society calls it a post office, and pre-lake topos shows four buildings spread out over a decent space. Another GNIS U6, which means it lacks the legal recognition to qualify under WP:GEOLAND. Search for WP:GNG-bringing coverage brought up nothing useful. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub about destroyed settlement, even though the population was very small.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And what evidence are you finding that this is an actual settlement? The sources refer to it as a post office, which is not the same thing. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Post office does not imply a community and no other evidence indicates presence of one. Glendoremus (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Truman Reservoir. Perhaps a mention of flooded communities on the reservoir page will do. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Truman Reservoir. WP:ATD seems reasonable as a target for merge. Wm335td (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked though some of the many cultural resource management (CRM) reports of the numerous archaeological surveys associated with the building and flooding of Harry S. Truman Reservoir to see if any historical or archaeological surveys or excavations involved Corbin, Missouri. Although I did not find anything in the few reports that I examined, there should exist some sort of official evaluation of the historical and archaeological significance and potential of this abandoned settlement before it was flooded by Harry S. Truman Reservoir.

What I did find, was that Corbin, Missouri is associated outcrops of fossiliferous Mississippian sedimentary strata that have significance in terms of understanding regional geology and paleontology. Corbin, Missouri, is mentioned in the below publications.

Branson, E.B. and Mehl, M.G., 1938. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Lower Mississippian of Missouri (Vol. 1). The University of Missouri.

Bowsher, A.L., 1961. The stratigraphic occurrence of some Lower Mississippian corals from New Mexico and Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 35(5), pp.955-962.

Kaiser, C.P., 1950. Stratigraphy of Lower Mississippian rocks in southwestern Missouri. AAPG Bulletin, 34(11), pp.2133-2175. Paul H. (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am going to keep working on this (have a bit already), but this is really an interesting one. Definitely a former rural community that is now gone. On the 1940 Iconium USGS Map (1:24000) you can see where Corbin is located, just off MO Route 82, to the east of Corbin Church. A couple houses/structures right there, consistent with rural Missouri communities. On the 1991 map, the church is now Bear Creek Church and the Corbin is gone, now in the lake.[13] Route 82 has been realigned to the south. There's evidence that the Corbin Church and Cemetery have been renamed as Bear Creek (which used to be very close to the post office location, but is now much wider due to the flooding). Two of the cites I've added so far come from Truman archeological stuff I found online, one being a finding aid that shows they have more records. My view of this one is similar to my !vote on Sagrada, Missouri. I've been monitoring the AFDs on rural American places recently, and only swoop in to work on ones that seem worthwhile. E.g., I had fun with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tar Heel, Kentucky but did not !vote keep there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would also support a merge to Truman Reservoir. The place has a post office, the references are fairly trivial. Newspapers.com has a number of articles that state that people lived at Corbin or were born there.here are 2: [14] [15] I'd prefer to see a non-trivial article about Corbin, hence my possible support for a merge. Cxbrx (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 15 October 2020 (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 12:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikha Sherly Marpaung

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

Non notable subject, fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sole claim to fame is as a singer for the Indonesian dubbed versions of some Disney films, but all we have to go on is some YouTube cover versions by her, and a Weebly blog. Moved to draft once already for the same reason. I can't find any significant coverage of her online in RS. Either WP:TOOSOON, or a hoax. Captain Calm (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every person who voiced a significant role in dub is notable. We need reliable sources to show notability which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only this website and some YouTube videos as its reference. Alongside it, she is not notable. BengkelBerkah05 (Talks/Contribs) 09:24, 16 October 2020 (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 speedied per WP:G14. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch, Kentucky (disambiguatoin)

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

Between the fact that this has one entry, and the terrible spelling error in the title, this is a worthless dab page. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A hatnote in Antioch, Kentucky to Pulaski County, Kentucky#Unincorporated places would suffice for now. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even speedy in the spirit of the "implausibly titled redirect" clause. Geschichte (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2020 (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 speedy by WP:G14. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, New York (disambiguation)

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

Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alden, New York (disambiguation). There's two entries, one of which is entirely located within the other, and the larger one is at the base title, so WP:TWODABS would say that hatnotes can handle this better than the dab page. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same situation applies:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Four of the five had a village hatnote in the corresponding town article, and I've added the fifth. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2020 (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 speedy per WP:G14. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alden, New York (disambiguation)

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

Given that there are only two dab entries, one of which is at the base title, WP:TWODABS suggests this would be better handled with hatnotes. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just like the other five examples above. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2020 (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 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chico Brenes

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable skateboarder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not had significant achievements in skateboarding, so fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. There is little coverage on him. It is commendable that he appeared in the face cover of a magazine, but as far as I could tell, it was just a picture, and there was nothing in that magazine about him. I think he's far from meeting WP:BASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:18, 17 October 2020 (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 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Arora

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

Fails WP:Actor and WP:RS --Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the notability bar for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2020 (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 Michael Morhaime#Dreamhaven. Please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 17:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamhaven

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. The sole independent reference is routine coverage of a new company being started. 1292simon (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Morhaime#Dreamhaven per WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zing^(Talk!) 03:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Morhaime#Dreamhaven as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:24, 15 October 2020 (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 12:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varahur Srinivasa Satyanarayana

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article was proposed for deletion in November 2013‎, so it does not qualify for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Few sources, little notability. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist just to see if there will be any arguments for keep, since it's not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a memorial page created by a family member. All I see is mirrors of this page and his patent, so not notable. If someone finds sources in Tamil I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2020 (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 Pirate radio in the United Kingdom#1990s. Sandstein 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight FM

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

Non-notable pirate radio station did not receive enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Unlike some UK radio pirates, no WP:SIGCOV exists. Worth noting that the previous AfD was 13 years ago; this is a new page, apparently on the same topic. Raymie (t • c) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: The station has no references, so it doesn't meet NMEDIA or GNG. So, delete the page in question. But the page itself can be turned into a redirect for KBDB-FM in Forks, Washington. The town where, yes, the Twilight movies were set (UGH!!!) and the radio station uses the "Twilight FM" branding. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on October 15, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Aside from the name, isn’t it completely irrelevant? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going by KBDB's webpage, they've converted to a generic conservative talk format as "ForksTalk 96.7", so there's no point to the rd at this point. The pirates are also non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering, could we Redirect this to Pirate radio in the United Kingdom#1990s? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirate radio in the United Kingdom#1990s: Per Foxnpichu. Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 19 October 2020 (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 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Bar and Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

This since-closed restaurant has no indication it was notable. The SMH reference seemed to have been the limit, and there's no evidence it rose to any prominence in the intervening years. Full disclosure: I was the nom at an AfD six years ago (No Consensus). StarM 01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (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. Passes WP:ANYBIO as highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Stoner Blackwell

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

fails WP:CREATIVE -- no critical studies of his work, no work in major museums DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak Delete~~ ~~- At this time, it is WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist. While~~ they have received three significant awards: Guggenheim, Pollock-Krasner, and Albers Foundation; I'm not sure if that is enough to establish notability. After doing a BEFORE search on two variations of his name, J Stoner Blackwell, and Josh Blackwell, I found nothing in the way of reviews, articles, mentions in books, museum collections, which surprised me. I could find a couple listings for shows or mentions in lists of award winners, but that is not SIGCOV. In a few more years he may have those, or if they can be found at this time, I would be willing to change my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to keep from weak delete, based on feedback from Curiocurio and ThatMontrealIP. I made a few improvements to article. Netherzone (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Guggenheim Fellowship counts as a significant award, as per WP:ANYBIO. Curiocurio (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curiocurio, I was wondering about that in light of another BLP AfD where a MacArthur grant (of all things!) was challenged. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Guggenheim. These are very, very hard to get.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notable awards won. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2020 (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 Alan Mikhail. Sandstein 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selimgate

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

Theauthor of the book is almost certainly notable ; the book might be; a separate article on a debate among historians about the quality of the book is not appropriate for an article. I tried to repurpose it for an article on the author, or even the book, but there's not enough to be useful DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Alan Mikhail, which now exists. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alan Mikhail, at least until an article about the widely reviewed book can be written. The current title is a Twitter hashtag neologism coined this month which has received no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would we have a WP:BLP problem if this definitely-not-neutral term redirected to the author? It looks like there's a bit of content that could be salvaged, so a merge would be preferable IMO, but not if we end up creating more problems with a merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was done carefully, I don’t think a merge nor redirect would cause any problems. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alan Mikhail then historymerge and delete If it's kept, it should be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. That said, I can't find more than cursory use of the hashtag, none of it RS, so it shouldn't be kept. WP:LABEL clearly applies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alan Mikhail - per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as independent page If you read the essays referenced on the page, you'll see that they are neither primarily about the author nor about his book. Selimgate is instead about broader debates in Ottoman history and global history. The debate involves half a dozen historians with their own wikipedia pages. There's plenty of scope and use for summary of debates on Wikipedia--see Ottoman Decline Thesis, Gaza thesis, Renegade thesis. The world history page is quite weak, and wikipedia needs better quality summaries of theories, approaches, and methodologies in the humanities. As for the title, a secondary debate about these reviews has taken place on social media, explicitly labeled Selimgate. It is notable that this debate has been between domain experts. Note too that the Selimgate page itself is a knowledge object for teaching: [16] Will Hanley (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will Hanley, It strikes me as rather disingenuous to claim that one tweet by a single professor expressing an intent to mention this article on a syllabus renders it a "knowledge object for teaching", and in any event it's unclear whether the tweet primarily comments on the WP article as opposed to its subject. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alan Mikhail. This page and the material on it will be every bit as searchable, and more understandable to nonspecialists (the primary audience for Wikipedia) by being combined into the Alan Mikhail or God's Shadow (were it to be created) pages. Definitely not notable enough for a standalone page, & one notes that pages like Ottoman Decline Thesis, Gaza thesis, Renegade thesis, cited by proponents here, refer to debates of much wider scope, longer historical standing in the scholarship, many more scholars involved, and more general issues, rather than single books. A more relevant example would be Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which has been the subject of a far larger and more longstanding controversy at this point, and whose author is much better-known to the general public, but the debate about which is found only on the reception subsection of the book's page. 72.84.251.244 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably merge or if kept rename -- Alan Mikhail has two other books published by academic publishers, so that God's shadow (book) which this article might be renamed to is not pure nonsense, but perhaps a book making controversial and excessive historical claims. The book has attracted perhaps 8 reviews, of which at least one (I gather) rubbishes what it claims. This may be a genuine controversy in academic historiography, but I do not think it deserves an article of its own. If we are to have, it should focus on the book, rather than the critical reviews of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm Runner

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

no evidence of notability . Non notable author, almost entirely description of plot, one extremely minor review DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Meets WP:NBOOK ie multiple reviews, reviews by Kirkus (here), BookTrust (here), The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (here), School Library Journal and Booklist (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The reviews provided by Coolabahapple above are all rather on the brief side, and in some cases are little more than plot summaries, but altogether I think does push this book into passing WP:NBOOK. Even if people disagree, though, deletion would still be inappropriate, as a redirect to Rick Riordan Presents, the franchise it belongs to, would be the proper WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified reviews. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple's comment. Just to need those reviews into article. --Gazal world (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thompson (businessperson)

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

This article rests on one third party source only, a promotional interview--in the New York Times in 2019. I was quite surprised to see it. Read it, the reporter says hardly anything and contributes essentially nothing, while the subject says what she thinks about her own company,

I knew the NYT did and continues to do promotional coverage in style and fashion, but those are fields where there's a rather thin line between real promotional and real journalism. This is business, where there's a sharp separation, and they are on the wrong side of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One NYT story is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. KidAd talk 05:50, 17 October 2020 (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. Discounting the "keep" by a blocked sock. Sandstein 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Arora

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

not independently notable, pr spam and likely paid for. No meaningful coverage, fails both NPOL and whatever NCORP applies to people. No objection to redirecting to his company though. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Clear away the mountain of paid puff pieces, and we're left with a) founded a notable company, b) held a dozen non-notable political and bureaucratic positions, c) was one of three people arrested recently in a conspiracy investigation. It doesn't add up to WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Article creator's editing pattern strongly suggests WP:COI, with ~~two~~ three attempts so far to remove the only well-sourced paragraph in the article: the one I added about the arrest. Agree with nominator that a redirect would be fine, in case anything develops about the conspiracy allegations. Captain Calm (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Calm also removed well sourced information two times from the article.CleanAmbassy (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable politician and businessman in India. Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Enough citations for justification. CleanAmbassy (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CleanAmbassy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Yes, i am the creator of the article. Is that mean i am not able to put Keep vote or should i not defending the article? — Note to closing admin: Captain Calm does not have any evidence, this is only his assumption.CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment, but it does have to be stated on the record because it does mean you're not an objective judge of whether the article actually meets our requirements or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said i am a Judge? I am not a judge. But i have right to defend the article and put my thoughts here. You can't push me down.CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the source of the discussion above, using the "edit" link. Can you see where is says ? There's a template, Template:Page creator, which is routinely used on comments to "keep" posted by page creators in an AFD. It's not saying you have no right to post here, it's simply a matter of record for the reviewing admin, as Bearcat notes. Captain Calm (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is what i also trying to say that a page creator has rights to put 'Keep' comment and putting a 'Keep' comment doesn't mean that creator is a Judge.CleanAmbassy (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (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.