< December 11 December 13 >
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. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi Kamala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG to begin with. Also fails WP:ACTOR. The only source cited here doesn't seem to be very independent. It's strange that the title of the source is about her while she is not even in the lead role. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 December 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. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiest, California[edit]

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

This may have been where Mr. Wiest's house once was, though I doubt it: the spot is now occupied by a pair decidedly proletarian properties, and the various references seem to indicate that Wiest held quite a bit of property. At any rate, the topos show buildings there, and across the canal, and while those depictions are pretty questionable when compared with the aerials, it's pretty clear that there wasn't a significant town here at any point, nor can I find any references to same. The reference to Wiest Lake is an irrelevancy given that the lake is over two miles away across the expanse of farm fields. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 12 December 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 USC Trojans baseball seasons. Missvain (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 USC Trojans baseball team[edit]

2020 USC Trojans baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team season article for a cancelled season. Only source says all the games cancelled. placeholder for a season that did not happen. Consists only of empty sections and details from the team article. noq (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 12 December 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. SNOW Missvain (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Corradino[edit]

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

Promotional article. Even if the subject were notable, WP:TNT would apply. But cannot see enough in the article or elsewhere to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 12 December 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 Draft. I have moved it to Draft:Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again[edit]

Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NFF, no evidence main production has begun, should be moved to draft space until production is shown to have begun or gains significant coverage BOVINEBOY2008 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bovineboy2008, do you want me to move the page back to draftspace? Starzoner (talk) 23:48, 13 December 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. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Harris (musician)[edit]

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

the topic of this article fails Wikipedia Notability , the few sources on the article are Nothing but crappy , No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fields' disease[edit]

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

The only significant coverage appears to be around the only two people who reportedly have this disease. Curiously, I could not find a single journal article that covered the disease, even in brief. This article is effectively a WP:COATRACK for the Fields twins. I don't think the twins are themselves notable, so I don't think a rename/rescope would work either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neill Jameson[edit]

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

the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability , the few sources on the article is NOT RELIEBLE ; the article loaded with so much talk with No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:49, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Platoon[edit]

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

Non-notable unproduced film, no evidence film ever entered main production, pre-production did not receive significant coverage, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 21:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, unproduced film that never entered production. Pretty much all sources being used are nothing more than press releases or from non-reliable sources. As neither the creator nor production company is notable, there is no place to Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 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. We're going to keep for now. Feel free to discuss WP:MERGE on the on the appropriate talk page(s). Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful Thinking: a theological ABC[edit]

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

almost no third party sources, except a book that covers indiscriminately everything he wrote. No evidence of an particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oromodae[edit]

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

Not a notable book. No independent sources and no substantial coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 12 December 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. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weltmacht[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American black metal band with a German name. Non-notable band. Tagged for notability since 2011, and tagged for sources since 2008. The article itself was created in 2006. Anyways, the band had three notable members and were signed to a notable label (even though they were specialized in bands who follow Nazi ideology), but I still bring this to Afd because of the sourcing, or lack thereof. There is no sourcing. During a google search I couldn't find anything besides the usual databases, retail sites, blogs, lyrics sites and download sites. There are a few album reviews scattered here and there, but unfortunately, they are featured on these blogs. So yeah, I think they are not notable, but the title can be redirected to any of the members' articles. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Dying Fetus and Krieg are notable, but I don't see a point in redirecting this title to either of those. Only if this text is copied to those articles, under a new section called "Weltmacht" and the title can stay as a redirect to that small section. But that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 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. Missvain (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian R. Decker[edit]

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

Does not meet all three WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. The article is misleading as the subject only played in regional productions of lasted big name musical. No news coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - HM2021 is the creator of the article. Fails to provide how this article meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 08:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 19:07, 12 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Taylor-Ritson[edit]

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

Non notable actress - I've added a few reviews to the article however those are for 1 film, It's also worth noting she starred in Casualty this year and like the rest of her filmography there's nothing confirming this.

IMHO this is a case of TOOSOON, she potentially meets NACTOR however she IMHO fails GNG. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 12 December 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. Deleting, feel free to redirect by discussing wherever is appropriate. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ego / Mirror[edit]

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

Almost completely empty article. Fails WP:SONG. Can be covered on the artists' respective pages. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 12 December 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. Making a snow closure here, clear community consensus that current and historic members of state/provincial legislatures in federal systems are presumed notable, per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Parra[edit]

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

Being in a state legistlature 10 years ago is not notable. Article has serious issues of NPOV and V that can't easily be remedied. None of the sources are legitimate (ex. Maxim) and the only other real sources are about her endorsing actual notable politicians Colestefan (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Diet[edit]

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

Seems spammy, cannot determine WP:Notability with all the promotional text, MAY qualify for speedy deletion under that category but it's marginal. I know "Deletion is not cleanup" but if the topic is notable, WP:Blow it up and start over seems appropriate in this case. It looks like a related topic was deleted on the Russian Wikipedia recently, assuming Google Translate is giving anything close to an accurate translation: ru:Стокгольмская диета ("Stockholm diet" according to Google), ru:Википедия:К удалению/20 ноября 2020#Стокгольмская диета (Google says "К удалению" means "To delete"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has to be kept. No. It doesn't. Wikipedia isn't the place to peddle pseudo-scientific fad diets. Praxidicae (talk) 19:11, 14 December 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Long Beach[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chase Long Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band sourced only to self-published pieces and tagged for notability since 2009. No RIS found on a search. Does not pass WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:20, 12 December 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 Celestial Movies. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Movies Asia[edit]

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

Article about a short-lived tv channel in China that only existed for two years. Source search in Chinese does not suggest this passes WP:CORP. Tagged for notability for eleven years. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:29, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzamat Akinbile Yussuf[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 December 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. I'm deleting but feel free to redirect if you wish. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penny O'Brien[edit]

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

Does not pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Item has been submitted and declined several times without much if anything in the way of improvement. In the last instance was rejected as lacking notability and it was suggested that attempts to creaate a valid submission had prbably been exhausted. Despite this it was moved, out of process, to main. Quick search reveals only those results previously rejected as refs and not any other usable results. Eagleash (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:30, 16 December 2020‎ (UTC).[reply]
@Photos of rdr2: Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) have an article about every actor or actress. The Wikipedia community has come up with guidelines for which to include and which not to include. If a subject is not notable (as appears to be the case here) then no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - you won't be able to 'make it right'. That's why other editors aren't rushing to help you improve it. Why do you 'need it to be completed' and why are you 'running out of time'? See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: uhhh...never mind it's not very important now...i decided to give some time until some more reliable source and more notability i was on hurry to prepare this Wikipedia article as a gift but it's nevermind now! And i understand everything you'll said! So it's okay :) — Photos of rdr2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:51, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shilole[edit]

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

Another upcoming musician with NO relevant topic to talk about , Fail Wikipedia Notability rules , few sources on the article seems NOT relieble sources , theres NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, turns out she even owns a restaurant. Missvain (talk) 21:55, 19 December 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. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Government COVID-19 press conference videos[edit]

List of Welsh Government COVID-19 press conference videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I stated on the article's talk page (I'll add a bit here): My concern is that these governmental press conferences don't warrant a list article, unless they have a significant impact or are more notable than just having update posts from BBC and one article from WalesOnline. As I said in the talk page, governments do conferences and howto videos all the time. This article has no other context, such as the makings of the videos, background, or controversies, etc., but merely packed with WP:HOWTO videos. The synopsis is also non-neutral, also having self-references like "we" and "I." I just don't see the need for this list. Information vital for understanding the pandemic in Wales can just be included in the Wales article. As I said again on the talk page, compilations of media are allowed by making a category on Wikimedia Commons. GeraldWL 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also the person who wrote the article appears not to understand that the Senedd and Welsh Government are two separate entities, describing it as the "Senedd of the Welsh Government". This is Paul (talk) 19:56, 15 December 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 Draft. This article is now located at Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film). Missvain (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)[edit]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NFF, no significant coverage on the actual production of the film, and no source indicating production has begun, should be moved back to draft space, moved too soon BOVINEBOY2008 12:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 12 December 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. I accept there is some local coverage, but given that it looks mainly unattributed, I doubt it is either significant or wholly independent from the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southend Borough Combination[edit]

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

This league is played between levels 17 and 21 of the English league system and the Premier Division of this league, therefore, sits 6 places below the level where it would have inherent notability (level 11). It therefore needs to demonstrate WP:GNG. I found nothing on ProQuest and a newspaper search showed that the results were listed in the Chelmsford Chronicle from time to time. The Yellow Advertiser does occasionally list results for the league here. I am yet to find even one instance of actual WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:15, 12 December 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zari Hassan[edit]

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

the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability rules .. WHEN it comes to music or business woman , there is nothing to talk about , it Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO . NO evidence of Notability Found Samat lib (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be another case of WP:IDONOTLIKEIT by this nominator. She passes our general notability guidelines and has been covered in major mainstream publications in Africa, for example:
and her relationship with Diamond Platnumz was covered in reliable secondary sources.[4][5][6][7][8]
I'm sure a more in-depth non-English search would also bring up some more. Yes, she's a socialite and businessperson but she's a famous person, that is for sure who passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:23, 20 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Yunghanns[edit]

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

A non-notable author with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Likely a case of undisclosed paid editing too. GSS 💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are both press releases from GlobeNewswire so please spend some time on reading the wikpedia policies to understand why your most recent edit was reverted. GSS 💬 10:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and/or sockpuppetry. MER-C 17:41, 14 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thandekile Ruth Mason Mvusi[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Although there are sources to attest TRMM's existence, they do not constitute "significant coverage" and some are not WP:RS (most are WP:PRIMARY). —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:49, 12 December 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 Draftify. The article has been moved to draft space. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the Dozen (2022 film)[edit]

Cheaper by the Dozen (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF, no evidence that the film has begun principal production, moved from draft space too soon, should be moved back BOVINEBOY2008 11:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:06, 12 December 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 14:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rooney (footballer, born 1978)[edit]

Mark Rooney (footballer, born 1978) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing one game of professional football in the Football League Trophy; a totally inconsequential appearance. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this appearance alone nor his subsequent career as a semi-pro/amateur. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. The best sources that I could find were a brief mention in a local paper and a transfer announcement. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:41, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Food Markets[edit]

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

The only significant coverage on this chain is related to closures of it's stores. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 11:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment, that is why I also voted DELETE. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search will naturally tend to put the most recent news at the top and, for this subject, that news is of their latest downturn -- like many other retail businesses in 2020. But the chain was founded before the Internet and so its growth and success will not be so prominent on the Internet. But if you conduct a thorough search, rather than a superficial one, then one can find a detailed company history and archive at Rutgers. And, here's an article in the NYT, from 1987, before they started their online edition. See WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 14 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N.I.L. (band)[edit]

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

Just another non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable doom/black metal band. The presented sources do not establish notability. Nothing better found during a Google search, as I have only found the standard databases, youtube videos, blogs and retail sites. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Butler (footballer)[edit]

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

This footballer played 1 minute on the Austrian second tier. There are two sources about him in the article, but I can't help to think that the prospect of him as a music mogul is WP:TOOSOON. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Jagtap[edit]

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

Not significant roles played in multiple notable TV shows, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She is known for her role as Radha in the Color Marathi's TV show Radha Prem Rangi Rangali so redirect to this would be appropriate until notability is achieved. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

786 Cosmetics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creepTalk 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè Moak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. New product launch. UPE. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4. scope_creepTalk 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 12 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeau, California[edit]

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

I am a bit confused here. The article says this place was on the railroad east of Cameron and west of Tehachapi, but since Cameron is east of Tehachapi, this directions are impossible. There's no GNIS entry, but from scanning the topos from well west of Tehachapi to east of Cameron, there's no feature on the railroad called Nadeau. There's a neighborhood in LA known as Nadeau, so this is making it a bit difficult to search. Newspapers.com results are for a hotel, a bar, and a vineyard in LA, even searching for Nadeau Kern. Gudde's Nadeau references appear to be refering to LA. I just can't find anything about this supposed place with impossible directions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Geology, California Division of Mines and (1886). Report of the State Geologist. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.
  2. ^ The Statistician and Economist: 1st-23d Issue 1876-1905/06. L.P. McCarty. 1878.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moccasin, Plumas County, California[edit]

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

Here the issue is position drift. The older topos show Moccasin as a point on the railroad itself, one end of a long passing siding. On the other side of the river they show what looks to be a camp of some sort, and there's one aerial from the 1940s which tends to support this. All of that goes away and is replaced by a few houses, and for some reason the name "Moccasin" wanders across the river and eventually labels these houses. I cannot find anything that explains any of this: as soon as the search is restricted to Plumas County, the hits are all either clickbait or tabular data featuring a variety of false hits. At this point I have to think that Moccasin is the siding and not whatever it is on the other side of the river, but lacking any explanation of the older version of the latter I cannot be entirely sure. Mangoe (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musethica[edit]

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

Topic notability seems too low to be included on Wikipedia as an independent article Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:41, 12 December 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) 08:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trescape, California[edit]

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

Topos show an largely undeveloped point on the railroad. It's listed as a station on the Southern Pacific in [9]. Can't find anything else describing the place, other mentions are as a railroad landmark. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:46, 12 December 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 Herbert London. Missvain (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Center for Policy Research[edit]

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of this organization. We cannot construct an article on the subject if there are no RS to build an article from. The article appears to have been created by an individual employed by the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:28, 12 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yewande Sadiku[edit]

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

I consider this an unmistakable copyvio of the first paragraphs of the subjectsprofile on their prootional website https://kibusinessforum.com/portfolio/hon-yewande-sadiku/

Another admin, whom I have notified, does not agree. Comparing the article the arrangement and wording is followed exactly, except of the omission of a few words or phrases. It's much more similar than what I would normally consider an excessively close paraphrase, and we delete even those.

It also fails to show notability: the references are either mere notices, or promotional interviews where the subject says whatever they care to , and are therefor not independent.enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:35, 12 December 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 14:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paymaster Landing, California[edit]

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

This is another one I cannot find any text description of, and the topos seem, well, confused. GMaps shows Walter's Camp, which depending on whether you believe the topos (which eventually show both it and the "landing" as two places) or this mention may or may not be on the same site; I have some trouble believing the topos because they show a pattern of buildings which seems to be a misinterpretation of the aerials of the same era, but there are some other hints that the landing was a bit north of the current camp. At any rate, there's nothing opposing the obvious interpretation of this as a place one could get across the river, but there's also no testimony to it as a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:55, 12 December 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 List of association football mascots. I just chose a merge suggested by User:Spiderone. Feel free to suggest other merges on the appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mascots of Brazilian football sides[edit]

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

Mascots are a notable topic but I'm not sure that an exhaustive list of mascots in Brazil is a notable topic. I also don't believe that having a mascot is a distinctive feature. Several football teams, whether pro, semi-pro or amateur, will have a mascot of some form. This is no more notable than a list of football physios or football kits or football chants. Spiderone 22:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence of this media coverage for these Brazilian mascots? Most of the articles linked are not similar to this one. FIFA World Cup official mascots tend to get a fair amount of coverage but that doesn't mean that this topic can inherit notability from that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bit of a flawed argument in this particular example as the only similar article is List of J.League mascots and I'm not sure that there's yet strong community consensus that that is notable. Spiderone 08:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2015/jun/23/strange-terrifying-world-football-mascots-in-pictures covers them as a group, and then you can search for any individual name and find coverage for it such as https://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/2018/07/05/brazil-canary-mascot-world-cup Dream Focus 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
World Cup mascots generally get good coverage and the article FIFA World Cup official mascots is warranted. My issue is that Brazilian club mascots are not covered as a group by reliable sources. Your Guardian source only briefly mentions one Brazilian mascot. Spiderone 08:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Guardian article not loading up for you? It list all the mascots. Dream Focus 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the version I am seeing. The version I am seeing is a photo gallery of mascots from countries as diverse as Scotland, Germany, Russia and Australia. Only one of the photos is of a Brazilian mascot (and the inclusion of one photo in a gallery, with a one-sentence caption, hardly constitutes significant coverage) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I should've looked closer at that. Anyway, if anyone speaks the Portuguese language, they will surely find coverage of them. Sports magazines give coverage to them, newspapers, etc. Dream Focus 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article existing for 15 years doesn't mean that it meets our inclusion criteria. Spiderone 22:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm starting to lean that way too. The list isn't huge so it's an unnecessary fork Spiderone 09:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say List of association football mascots is the most obvious target Spiderone 22:20, 15 December 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 William Haggard#Colonel Charles Russell series. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Charles Michael Russell[edit]

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

Fictional character with no real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Hari[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- coverage is passing mentions in two lists of films nominated for awards. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 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 Comedy Couple. A singer's popularity does not contribute directly to their meeting our notability standards, and so comments pointing to popularity carry little weight. As such there's consensus here that this creation occurred too soon; if more coverage becomes available, the history will remain available to anyone wishing to recreate this. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmaya Bhatnagar[edit]

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

Non notable singer who does not satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. A Google search of her mostly shows mentions and no in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources was found to qualify for WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nalbarian: Being a singer is not an assertion of notability. They need to satisfy a notability criteria which subject of this article fails to satisfy any relevant criteria. The Rolling stone article contains significant discussion of the subject, but multiple such sources are needed to establish notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate: Please look carefully, ref 1 has been published through rollingstoneindia and is a duplicate article to [13]. In order to qualify for WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. Ref 2 & 3 are announcements of her music release and do not amount to establishing notability.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the Magzter article is a re-publishing of the one on the Rolling Stone website. I'd still go with keep though, she has enough coverage to meet WP:SINGER as there is no indication that the coverage is non-independent. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my assessment of each source cited. Reference 1 is an announcement of music release and is based on comments from the subject herself. The second one is a tweet. The third one does not even mention her. The forth reference is a press release article mentioning her in passing. The fifth one is a link to a video song from Comedy Couple that the subject has composed. The sixth one is an announcement of her second song. While sixth reference is based on an interview. These sources do not add up to WP:SIGCOV. Being covered through independent sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. These sources should address the topic directly and in detail.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just have one more thing to add to the argument: As per [rules], she " has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.." For example, Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Links- Spotify Chai & Acoustic [14] and Sad Indie Bops [15]. Nalbarian (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She also meets composers and lyricists criteria as she wrote every song (including for the film Comedy Couple). Nalbarian (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The9Man, those songs are not some mere YouTube songs and all songs of her are well-received in multiple music related reliable sites. We’re living in an age of singles, and there are tons of ways to put one song to work. Modern singers distribute their song as a single to various platforms like YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music. For instance- Just saw that one of her song is for sale on Amazon [[16]] and other songs are available on all major platforms. Redirect does not do justice to such Indie Folk unique singers. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on. Nalbarian (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where a singer distributes a song. If it doesn't meet the requirements of notability, it is not notable. A search on these two songs gives only the listing results on various platforms. There is no secondary significant coverage. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on is not a valid argument to have an individual article either. - The9Man (Talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A review needs detailed observations (lyrics, unique styles, catchy melodies, instruments etc.). See these links - [17] [18] Nalbarian (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, those are not reviews. - The9Man (Talk) 08:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Nardia[edit]

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

Time to put this up for removal: person with no inherent notability, no breathtaking achievements that cry out for notability, no reliable sources of any credence providing proper discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Black Belt is the leading martial arts magazine and there is a full article about Nardia, that should enough for natability; Furthermore, Israel Hayom has an interview with him and it's a good source. Tzahy (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not usually considered enough to show notability and, as I said above, interviews don't count towards notability since they are first party and non-independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 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 Logan County, Kentucky. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whippoorwill, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick calls it a locale (geography), which falls below the WP:GEOLAND bar. Topographic maps show a small cluster of buildings. Newspapers.com results mention a Whippoorwill Creek, a Whippoorwill Church, and a Whippoorwill railroad station, but nothing indicative of a notable community. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND as not a legally recognized community and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the newspaper.com citation, but there's just no chance it's talking about the same church, in that Schochoh is nowhere near the supposed location of this settlement; also, from what I can tell, this church has always had its current name. The store references seems a bit more promising, though. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I should have checked that first; they're in completely different parts of the county. I think this is the Whippoorwill Church that article is about, and it's definitely in Schochoh proper. Striking the "leaning" part. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am all about historical coverage in an encyclopedia but Hog Farm had valid reasons for nominating the article. The "community" (obviously historical) can be found listed in the Logan County, Kentucky article so there is existing currently unsourced coverage. If all we are going to have is a permanent dictionary stub, that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines, I would think esteemed editors and Admins would not argue with redirecting this article to the more suitable place and add these found references. Then "someone", at some future time, might create a viable article. I would even wonder why this would be controversial? -- Otr500 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you meant a different place, but if you're thinking of Schochoh, Kentucky as being the more suitable place, it's actually in a completely different part of the county; I was wrong about that in my initial comment. Maybe the article could be merged somewhere else, but that wouldn't be an appropriate target. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about any confusion. I had stated the community was already "listed in the Logan County, Kentucky article" though unsourced. Why could the references not be added there for a future article more than the mentioned dictionary entry? -- Otr500 (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [19] - "a collision at Whippoorwill, Kentucky". This does not indicate that there is a legally recognized, notable community at Whippoorwill. While a lawsuit is a legal event, that it is not legal recognition of a locale. For example if there an article about an arrest and court case because 555 1st st. had a loud party, that does not make that locale legally recognized. There is some debate about what legally recognized means. I feel that it includes a post office, almost no one agrees with me (which is fine). Most people would agree that legal recognition is a place that has elected officials such as a village etc. (There are exceptions, ask me about Gerlach, Nevada, which has an improvement district that has elected officials (but I digress)). So, being in a lawsuit does mean that the locale is legally recognized.
  2. [20] - "In 1830 a new building was erected on the same road near Whippoorwill bridge." So now we know that in 1830 there was a church near a bridge named Whippoorwill. Still no legal recognition and a church near a bridge is not very notable.
  3. [21] - "part owner of a large general store at Whippoorwill". Ok, so now there was a church, a bridge and a general store. Still no legal recognition and not notable.
Searching newspapers.com for "Whippoorwill Logan in Kentucky" finds
  1. [22], which says that Whippoorwill is being removed from the Rand-McNally 1993 road map based on census data. Or may R-M realized that there was no there, there? :-).
  2. Newspapers.com also yield hits about fishing in Big and Little Whippoorwill Creek, that there is a Whippoorwill church and more about the general store.
  3. There was [23] which is an 1883 clipping that mentions Whippoorwill Station.
Searching GBooks finds
  1. a Whippoorwill station, and an article that indicates that Whippoorwill was not a post office ca. 1881.
  2. The best thing I saw in GBooks was [24] which lists Whippoorwill as a town or village. However this is still not notable. It could be that this is where Whippoorwill was added to the Logan County, Kentucky article. I encourage someone to update that article with the citation if they are so inclined.
  3. Even Rennick says "Whippoorwill (Logan) - See Ferguson". Ferguson, Kentucky is in a different county and Ferguson, Logan County, Kentucky has no page. So, the reference (Rennick) that the GNIS probably started with says "see somewhere else" and that somewhere else does not have a article.
  4. The History of Kentucky (1998) mentions Whippoorwill the creek and the L&N station, but does not state that there was a community there.
So, in summary, Whippoorwill, which has a great name, has had a bridge, a station, a church and a general store. The station means that WP:STATION might apply. I found no evidence of a post office, though I did find one reference that specifically states that there was no post office. So, I have found no evidence that this locale was legally recognized. Thus #1 of WP:GEOLAND was not met. I found a few trivial references, but I found no non-trivial references like a book or article about the locale. Thus #2 of WP:GEOLAND has not been met. This locale was not and is not legally recognized and has no non-trivial coverage, so unless someone comes up with WP:RS sources that have non-trival coverage, the article should be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 02:18, 16 December 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. I'm not seeing evidence of this meeting any notability criterion, nor am I seeing a persuasive IAR argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shii Studies Review[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "Is indexed in some selective databases. as ias.edu". However, ias.edu is not an indexing service or database. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you perhaps give us a link that actually shows that this journal is well-cited? Just a bunch of WP:GHITS doesn't do the job, I'm afraid and GScholar (click the link "scholar" in the header) gives not a single citation... --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ It was you who argued this was notable because of the number of GHITS, not me. 2/Please provide a source for the assertion that this is "the second most reliable academic Shii journal". 3/ And although Humanities journals are generally less-cited than journals in the Social Sciences (and even less in the Sciences), it is rather rare to find a journal that after 3 years (an admittedly short period) is barely cited or even not cited at all. --Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I meant that referring to WP:GHITS as wrong view is not acceptable not referring to Goolgle search. 2. Since there is no other academic journal in shii studies published by a notable editor and publisher, that proposition is true. 3. If it is not cited then what does the search show? It is already cited in more than ten English Wikipedia pages (as a minor evidence). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ I don't understand what you are trying to say. You linked a Google search in your original comments. Far as I can see, GHITS applies. 2/ This looks like WP:SYNTH. If there are indeed only 2 journals in this subject area, then either saying "the second most reliable academic Shii journal" or "the least important academic Shii journal" would both be correct and both are meaningless, because not based in policy. 3/ Being cited in WP pages is absolutely meaningless. I hope I don't even need to explain this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are press release (the English sources at least, since I can't read Arabic) simply announcing that a new journal exists, not independent coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says non-independent press releases are unacceptable, not all of them. These are independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Pirhayati, a press release is an official statement that the organisation gives to the press. A press release is written by the organisation itself, so never independent. PJvanMill)talk( 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of citations is not unusual, and not an indicator that the journal is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations is not handful. [34][35][36][37][38]. Of course, these are Persian sources that indicate the position of this publication in the Islamic world and even non-English speakers. Good luck Shiasun (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is barely cited and has an h-index of 2. There is one paper cited 6 times, another cited 3 times, one cited twice, and then about 15 papers cited once. Our least notable scholars have more citations than the entirety of this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think google scholar lists all the sources with a reference to this journal. It is mainly based on European languages and it does not even cover all of the books/articles in these languages. For example I don't think it covers [39], [40] and [41] which have a reference to this journal. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GS covers any language and most certainly covers any Wiley journal, any journal listed in JSTOR, and anything that is also listed in GBooks. In addition, I just went through the Wiley article that you linked to ([42]) and it does not even mention this journal, nor does it cite any article published in this journal (the word "review" comes up with 3 hits, neither of them the Shii Studies Review). As Headbomb said above, a smattering of citations is not enough for notability. Even more so if some of those citations don't exist... I understand that it is frustrating when an article that you created is nominated for deletion, but now that we're here, any "keep" !vote needs to be based on fact and policy or it will be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows two citations in Wiley; it seems that google services cannot be trusted. And where are the Persian articles mentioned above in GS? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the picture if you go from a handful of citation to a slightly bigger handful of citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You're quite welcome to ignore NJournals (which is designed to make it easier for journals to become notable). In that case, please tell us how this journal meets WP:GNG. The links you give are to non-selective databases that do not provide independent coverage. That there are notable scholars connected with the journal is irrelevant (see WP:NOTINHERITED), unless there is somewhere independent coverage about the fact that said scholars are involved with this publication. Without adequate sources, your !vote boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and will likely ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Thanks but it's not a matter of like or dislike. I think you're adhering to GNG more than necessary. This seems like an WP:IAR case. Look, the journal is indexed in multiple databases, advertised in various websites, managed by highly notable academics and has received works from known authors. So, it's not a WP:NOTINHERITED case. --Mhhossein talk 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing my point. At this moment, the journal is not notable. It may become so in the future, but at this time we don't even know whether it's going to survive, let alone become notable in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: You do realize that sources need to be independent, do you? Press releases written by the co-EIC don't add to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are those in the article? I don't see them, which ones are these? --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes. Encyclopaedia Islamica website[45] - University of Religions and Denominations website[46] - International Quran News Agency[47]. Shiasun (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that's a press-release type of statement from people with an affiliation with the journal [48]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shiasun, the links you've added to the article and those listed by Pirhayati above all either just repeat a statement from its editor, or just repeat the journal description. These are not independent sources, they consist mostly of content written by the people who work on the journal. They do not indicate notability. PJvanMill)talk( 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 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. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but at this point there is a lack of sources to show notability. RL0919 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temitope Fabiyi[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from MUSICBIO and generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up empty. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 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. czar 02:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cortena, California[edit]

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

I had to search both names given, and from what I can determine its existence as a rail junction was relatively short-lived, as the Colusa and Lake Railroad died early, being taken up during WW I. Meanwhile, Cortena apparently the name of the corresponding spot on the crossing trackage, now operated as the California Northern by Genesee. If find numerous references to an ag station operated here in the 1920s, and the grain elevator complex appears on most of the topos. What I don't see is a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Future (Organization)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG, despite having notable members in Earle, and Wadhams. Sources in the article either don't mention this organization, or are primary or unreliable. I can't turn up really anything in the way of significant coverage that is not produced by people affiliated with the group. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NORG Facing Future is an non-profit educational organization AaronNGray — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON does not seem to apply to non-profit organizations AaronNGray

I have added links to the page to demonstrate verify Stuart Scott's notability (including Stuart Scott introducing Greta Thunberg at COP24) and Facing Futures pre history and indirect prominance. AaronNGray

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 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) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamba, California[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG - No GNIS entry, not on topos, not in Gudde, and I couldn't find anything super meaningful on Gbooks or newspapers.com. Hog Farm Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 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. As always, GNG is the trump card over local guidelines, and as pointed out by SportingFlyer and Mnnlaxer amongst others, there is little to show he passes this. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antone Belt[edit]

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

Tone Belt was a collegiate long jumper. He has never even competed in a single international championship for adults. He did compete in one World Junior Championships, but did not win. As such, Tone Belt fails Wikipedia guidelines as a junior athlete who never transisted to the senior stage. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NCOLLATH reads: College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. It's not accomplishment-based, it's coverage based, and I haven't seen any qualifying coverage yet. I get 13 hits on Newspapers.com when typing in "Antone Belt" 2006-2020, and all 13 hits are agate. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: I read that differently to you as something that is accomplishment-based. That effectively says that (for example) the reporting of winning of multiple individual national titles itself constitutes "non-trivial media coverage". Note that the guideline is specifically saying coverage of the listed accomplishments is to be treated as non-trivial, not that additional coverage beyond that it required. Kind of wiki-lawyering here which isn't my bag and I prefer to stand on my reasons above, but if people are looking for a rules-based outcome then clearly the subject is in WP:NCOLLATH scope. SFB 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. "Non-trivial" here clearly means the media coverage - if the accomplishment is non-trivial but the media coverage is trivial, then the article would fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (band)[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2013 and seen no improvement. My WP:BEFORE has shown several user generated sources, none of which pass as IRS. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 12 December 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 draftify. Please mind the below comments before restoring the article. czar 02:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elgi Equipments[edit]

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

Promotional article about company that does not satisfy corporate notability. If this were in draft space, it would be declined as being about what the company says about itself, and not about what third parties say about the company. It has been moved into draft space twice, and has been moved back into article space by the author twice. Author has not addressed the question of whether they are being paid or any other conflict of interest. Nominating for a full deletion discussion as an alternative to speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publicly traded company in India, almost certainly notable (see WP:PUBLICWP:LISTED) and almost certainly has significant coverage in independent sources. Did nominator perform a WP:BEFORE search for them? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to WP:LISTED not WP:PUBLIC. In any case, it doesn't guarantee automatic notability. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 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 after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakaengam Jitmuangnon[edit]

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

Currently, doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderator, I oppose the AFD put on this article.

Sakaengam Jitmuangnon is a star in the stadiums, he has consistently been recognized by Muay Thai media as one of the most exciting fighters in the current circuit. In fact, in 2016, he won the Fight of the Year. Just yesterday, he and his superstar camp-mates, Rodtang, and Nuenglanlek were signed by Yokkao, one of the recognizable brands in Muay Thai. For reference, Yokkao has a very small stable of active elite Thai fighters, including but not limited to Saenchai and Singdam Kiatmuu9, two legends of the sport. Additionally, Sakaengam was a Minimumweight (105lbs) Omnoi Stadium champion. Since the 1990s, the Omnoi Stadium title has been a much-sought-after belt. Sakaengam also beat Banluerit Siwatcharatchai last month to win the largest 112lbs tournament since 2017.

To the person that will review this article, I urge you to keep this page up. Thank you for reading and for your consideration.

PhanKS1505 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article indicates he's a WMC world champion.Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure I read that somewhere, but I can't find it now (perhaps it was another fighter from the Jitmuangnon camp). Even the YOKKAO site describes him as "an up-and-coming elite stadium fighter making his way up". Therefore, I have struck my entire previous comment. It is still possible he might meet WP:GNG, but I need to rely on people with Thai language skills to provide those sources. Papaursa (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content Partners[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creepTalk 07:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access all the entries in the list as two are paywalled, but it is a brand new company, a very small private company with 7 people working for it. How can it be notable? All the references are routine announcements, churnalism and paid press-releases. There is news on it, because it is brand new company. No evidence has been presented as to why it is notable, and a paid editor has appeared to defend it. WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 scope_creepTalk 15:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 December 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 09:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Atabay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Serv181920 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 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) 08:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Shariati Varnosfaderani[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus doesn’t satisfy GNG. Furthermore WP:ANYBIO is also not satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 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. Essentially an one-sentence unsourced stub. If sources are found, it should be written from scratch. Tone 11:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razjarnikovi[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation, and so is the Slovenian wiki article, so no help there. No sources located on a search, not even trivial mentions. Yes, it's from 1994 and Slovenian, but that doesn't mean we can simply ignore our policies about notability (let alone verification). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 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 09:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Chew[edit]

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

Plant-in advertisement for this person's training class. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 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 Crimson Thorn. Sandstein 09:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissection (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Awesome Christian metal band, but I am afraid this album is not notable. Tagged for notability since 2013. The article is unsourced. During a Google search I couldn't found any reliable sources (only the standard junk like metal archives, discogs, genius, spirit of metal, download links, retail sites, blogs...) Most of the search results are either trivial mentions in context of the band, reviews of their album titled "Legacy of Dissection" but even that's rare, and album reviews from the Swedish band Dissection, which is notable. (Crimson Thorn is notable as well but this album isn't.) No evidence of notability. A redirect is all this is worth. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 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 09:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ActivMedia Robotics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, the page outlines their corporate history and not much of notoriety. Few of the sources provide significant coverage. Google News has no articles for this company. ~RAM (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2006-07 ✓ Keep
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article was suggested for deletion due to a lack of notoriety. The sources that are there are mainly primary in nature, including a few books and articles where the founder(s) was the primary author. The one article in a true secondary news source was simply a mention as an employee was quoted on an unrelated matter - and had nothing to do with the company. The rest of the sources seem to be routine press releases in industry websites. ~RAM (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 18 December 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 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taly and Russ Johnson[edit]

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

Unsourced (one is email list, the other one is dead). Found a brief mention on ASU's film festival (https://asuartmuseum.asu.edu/content/fourth-annual-arizona-state-university-art-museum-short-film-and-video-festival), but otherwise can't find anything. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Extremely poorly sourced and seems to be promotional, possibly self-written. Coreykai (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:23, 12 December 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 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Goel[edit]

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

Non notable author with no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. Sources like the Hans India, The Statesman, and Mid-day seem to be either PR or paid pieces. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author has written some books and is also sourced which I have already put. According to me page should be kept.--WikiPanti (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiPanti, the article is filled with primary and self published websites and the third party references you have cited are paid ones and do not help to establish notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Umakant Bhalerao: Sources seem to be good and along with GoodReads are also sourced.--WikiPanti (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone, and I mean quite literally, anyone can write 12 novels. It doesn't make them notable. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:31, 15 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himjyoti Talukdar[edit]

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

It seems that this film director is not notable.His role should be mentioned in the articles of his movie Calender. From the history of edits, it appears that the person have written or added to that article about himself. Autobiography should be strongly discouraged. Iamudit (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 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. Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Iranian Television (US)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 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. Scope creep's concerns about the sources have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorit Ungar Black[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 07:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you always vote keep. How can she be notable, when the majority of the references are profile pages, one is a press-release and one is an interview. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY secondary source amongst the lot of them. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Gables, California[edit]

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

I can find out essentially nothing concrete about this place, using either spelling. Every GHit/GBook hit is either a name drop or clickbait. Topos show a very small scattering of buildings which could be almost anything; later ones show a larger scattering which is consistent with the GMap aerial, showing the ruins of a few widely scattered buildings. The whole area is absolutely barren except for a rather odd grid of what could be roads plowed across the area. I just can't see how this could be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:15, 12 December 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. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvve[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No sources in the article. WP:BEFORE showed promos, directory listings, interviews with actors, etc, but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the film) directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe the review is just of this particular film. That said, it may not be sufficient to pass WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Mayagadu[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No sources in the article. WP:BEFORE showed promos, directory listings, interviews with actors, etc, but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject (the film) directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 12 December 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. Consensus has tended towards the arguments put forward by Missvain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kislay Pandey[edit]

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Not seeing anything that would merit overturning the previous AfD. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: quantity of sources doesn't inform a conversation about GNG very much. Which sources did you find were independent of the topic (not vanity press)? VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 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. There is now a clear consensus that the sources cited in support of this article fall short of providing the independent, reliable, and substantial content necessary to support the existence of an article. No prejudice against restoring to draft for further investigation and development of sources. BD2412 T 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleisha Allen[edit]

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

Actress. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 decided that this recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD should come back here for a second visit. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SportingFlyer, I've added some new sources from jet magazine and the New york times to be a significant source for her acting career. Check the article if you're intrested. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is just name-checked in both of those articles, those sources are far away from being WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But these are still undeniable reliable sources that is used for her acting career which is a part of GNg. and the rotten tomatoes source is Signifcant coverage. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [65] includes the subject in a list of people who were born on a certain day. It isn't significant coverage and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source.
  • [66] is a book which has "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" - it's therefore a copy of the deleted Wikipedia article which someone will print on demand. It's not a usable source.
  • [67] is from a site which offers mass-produced clickbait pages about celebrities. It doesn't look like a reliable source. It claims she is worth several million dollars, which seems rather unlikely.
  • [68] is a catalogue entry in the Library of Congress, it's not significant coverage.
  • [69] is the subject's biography on Rotten Tomatoes. I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent.
  • [70] presents a list of brief biographies of people who were in the film School of Rock. The subject appears last in the list (at #14) and it doesn't represent significant coverage.
  • [71] namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
  • [72] also namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
  • [73] is a student testimonial by Aleisha Allen at a university. Even if we take it on trust that it's the same person it's not independent because the subject wrote it.
  • [74] says that Aleisha L Allen is a fee based instructor at a university. Not significant coverage.
  • [75] is a directory entry for an Aleisha L Allen. Not significant coverage.
  • [76] is IMDB, which isn't a reliable source.
WP:NACTOR is not a substitute for the general notability guideline. From WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Hut 8.5 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hut 8.5, How would you suggest I fix the article per WP:Improve the junk since you so strongly opinionated and tenacious on deleting it? How's a entire magazine talking about the movie and mentioning the actors of the movie not significant coverage? I think You're thinking too harsh on these sources. And the subject studied at columbia university and if you think that's not signifant coverage you can contact the person at their phone number. It's pretty difficult to find full on articles about the actress that has stepped away from the acting limelight, but that doesn't completly justify complete article completion. And your criteria of significant coverage is debatable at best see Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required where it says "In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources". And from the policy WP:BIO it says and i quote " Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." It supports the content of her being pathologist and is good source to be used in the personal life section. And guideline one of WP:ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The actress has been nominated three times for awards one of them being an individual award for her Co-starring role in Are We There Yet. And she has had significant roles in the field of television and movies being a main character on Blue's Clues for 130 episodes, Co-starring in are we there yet and it's sequel. And WP:NACTOR is the actor/entertainer extentsion of WP:BIO designated for actors because said policy is too broad. And with significant coverage the coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Are expecting an entire article on the person? The Jet magazine article mention her a good couple of times and has her and her fellow cast members of are we there yet on the cover. And I used the sources to substantiate certain parts of th article such as the first source I used to confirm her birthday, the 8th source I used to confirm her appearance in the film. And using opinionated sentences like "and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source."and "I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent." is not helping your side of the arugument. Even so that source was created this year when the current wikipedia article was a redirect. these are speculations that doesn't justify the credibility of said sources. Source 1. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted passing NACTOR does not necessarily make someone notable. NACTOR is supposed to indicate that someone is likely to be notable and that sources passing the GNG are likely to exist. If sources meeting the GNG do not in fact exist then a subject which passes NACTOR can still be deleted. I'm not hugely surprised that someone who barely passes NACTOR on the basis of a small number of roles as a child actor (one of them voice only) does not meet the GNG. American actors who were active recently are exactly the kind of people who would receive media coverage if significant. I'd be willing to give more leeway if the subject was one where suitable sources may not be accessible, but that's not the case here. The subject doesn't meet the ANYBIO test as there's only one individual award nomination and even if she did ANYBIO falls into the same category as NACTOR.
The GNG does not require that every source meets the standard of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, but there must be some sources which do. I don't think any of the sources in the article qualifies, for the reasons I gave above. Even you seem to have conceded that it isn't possible to find suitable sources ("pretty difficult to find full on articles"). To meet the GNG sources need to do much more than "mention her a good couple of times" or "confirm her appearance in the film". Hut 8.5 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, which of the sources presented do you think meet GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes appears to be considered reliable WP:ROTTEN and the coverage, while cursory, isn't trivial. [77] is also terse, but reliable. [78] is quite detailed, but I've no clue how reliable it is. As I said, probably at the GNG bar. Plus meets a SNG. So a keep IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Onel5969 So being in 130 episodes(6 seasons) of blue's clues as a major role and co-starring in Are We There Yet and Are We Done Yet? is barely passing the WP:NACTOR bar? You're leaning on GNG specifcally the significant sources section way too heavily. GNG is mostly in place as a testament to partially determine notability. Notability comes down to multiple factors such as significant roles which is very presentt and the award nominations a actor recives, but nonetheless there is many to attribute to notablity and GNG is not the sole determining factor if x actor has a broad enough notablity to recieve a page, which would make the deletion process extremly flawed. You should aslo look at WP:Significant coverage not required because significant cover regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources which I have provided and I have found another significant source from TMZ. And most biography pages on the enclyopedia are made based off of the notability of the subject , not how many primary and significant sources you can find on the subject, Don't get me wrong, you need them though. And you also you have to remember Notability is not a level playing field, the amount of Significant coverage is not the only that determines if a page stays or not, Because for some biographies minimum could be just one or two while other will need several. The significant source that is is the rotten tomatoes source I used per WP:ROTTEN. And on top of that reliable sources are present at the article to demostrate verifiablitly on certain content such as certain movei roles and early acting career which is part of GNG clause. Hut 8.5 only attempted to rebutt the signifcant source claim that I made which I pointed out the holes in side of the arguement with my rebuttal. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no, no one is going to convince me playing a table on Blues Clues is enough to get you an entry on Wikipedia. I don't know much about that show (in fact, I just recently learned Blue is a female while watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade...who knew ) but, I looked at the Blues Clues article and using that as an argument is silly, when most of the other re-occurring characters in that show don't even have articles about the actors. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 20 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Deenway Montessori School[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT), lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. A nice, perfectly normal school, but not an encyclopedic topic.   // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 12 December 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 Robin Hood in popular culture#Books. Sandstein 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin: Lady of Legend[edit]

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

Non-notable book that was a semifinalist in a minor Amazon contest. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight tweak - in the beginning there were about 100 semifinalists, in the final year 25, per the Wikipedia article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It also piles up the fact that this is one of the only books that won that award to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsonxists (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't win, it was just a semifinalist. In any case, the award itself has received coverage but the books typically don't outside of that. It's why I'd say that it would probably count towards notability but wouldn't be enough to establish notability on its own, assuming that we were talking about the person(s) who won for that year. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 12 December 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. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This was previously prodded by User:TTN for failing GNG and deprodded by User:KingSkyLord with no rationale. I concur that 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 12 December 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 Magic in Harry Potter to a limited extent, focusing on real-world and sourced information rather than plot summary. Sandstein 08:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Potions in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has, since it's been reinstated, had none of its issues fixed, and likely won't be able to: it reads much like a list, doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N), and directly violates the WP:PLOT policy. Because its essentially impossible to frame this article's contents in a real-world perspective, it belongs on the Harry Potter wiki (see MOS:INUNIVERSE). This has been brought up before, and the promise that the article would be revised A) has not been fulfilled; and, B) cannot be fulfilled. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've stated multiple times that you disregard GNG's need for per-source significant coverage, and you have not provided anything significant covering the potions of the fictional universe as a whole. You have not provided any argument as to why this page in particular needs to exist. You've just stated a preference for it over attempting to improve what can be called the parent article and then later splitting it back out should there be too much weight on the topic. If those sources even count as significant coverage, there is no reason why the one or two paragraphs the topic deserves in Magic in Harry Potter (assuming that can be salvaged) cannot cover them. One or two specific potions being covered to some extent does not provide sufficient reason to have an entire article on the subject. TTN (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I don't see a need for per-source significant coverage, as compared to just overall significant coverage, that's true. If this is stated somewhere in WP:GNG, rather than being an opinion about WP:GNG, please point me there. I don't at all think that I am disregarding WP:GNG in total for two reasons:
First let's assume for the sake of the argument, that love potion, Veritaserum and Polyjuice potion in Harry Potter each had coverage in secondary sources (as has been shown above/previously), but not enough to have a separate article each. In such a case WP:GNG suggests: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Or in this case: create a parent article like "Potions in Harry Potter". Now I don't say that merging to Magic in Harry Potter could not also be a good solution, though I am not convinced it would be the best one. But I do think that WP:GNG does not support wholesale deletion in such a case (with loss of all the secondary sources).
Second, the topic "Potions in Harry Potter" is discussed at some length e.g. in The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter and A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World as found by Cunard. Of course there the majority - though not all - of the material is plot-summary. But other secondary sources like "Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World" and others provide the relevant real-world additions. Taking these together to create a reasonalbe stand-alone article again in my opinion is not disregarding WP:GNG but looking at why we have these requirements in the first place. Daranios (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there's flexibility in that wording, I can only say you're blatantly wrong. It very clearly supplies examples of two specific sources and makes no mention of some nebulous overall coverage, allowing the combination of several trivial sources to equal one good source or some such. While no guideline is set in stone, I take that as a very strange interpretation not conforming to anything stated in it. And that basically covers the rest of your argument. There is no "taking these together" when accounting for GNG. There are good sources and poor sources. Poor sources may have some contextual utility in the case that there are plenty of good sources, but poor sources on their own do not make for an article that meets GNG. TTN (talk) 22:41, 18 December 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 08:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Ahmed (philosopher)[edit]

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

The article, sourced mainly from Varsity, Cambridge University's student-run newspaper, presents Ahmed's involvement in the freedom of speech debate at his institution. Since coverage of only one event, here in a better source by The Times, does not automatically lead to notability (WP:E1), I checked whether he met WP:NACADEMIC. Currently, I think his academic record does not meet this guideline. He might well become notable in the future, e.g. by being elected to a named chair. For the time being, it's just his intervention in the freedom of speech debate. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reader at Cambridge is comparable to a full professor at a good US university (not that either, just by itself, would confer notability under WP:Prof). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Magnovvig: Would you dial down the rhetoric? Last time I checked, name calling was not a good sign for solid arguments at AfD. I'm sorry your article was nominated for deletion. Seeing that we have delete and weak keep !votes, I don't think the case is as obvious as you wish it was. Let's return to the sources of which you don't seem to cite any in your comment. You claim that the subject has "in one stroke created an entirely new discipline". The way you put it he must be a figure like Kant or Wittgenstein, which would be fine by me if you just cited some professional sources backing this up. I'm sure they exist though, so do link them in this discussion. Since the only thing we have to assert his influence is your comment, let's have a look at the GS citations referred to by @Xxanthippe:: the subject is cited 428 times. For reference, other notable Cambridge philosophers who have no claim to have "created an entire discipline": Rae Langton 4017, Huw Price 6220, Alexander Bird 5781. They are the standard he needs to demonstrably reach. Perhaps his sub-field is low on citations but you might now understand why I'm somewhat sceptical about the outsized claims you have made. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:02, 12 December 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.
More